Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in theChair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Fred Brown Simpson, esquire, late Member for the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WASTE PRODUCTS.

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, to prevent the waste of essential foods at military camps, he will consider immediately setting up a salvage corps, either to prevent waste or to turn excess rations to profitable use?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Commanding officers are responsible for the prevention of waste, and recent inspections have not revealed that food is being wasted. The by products of messing are disposed of to the best advantage, and the proceeds, which are credited as part of the messing account, accrue for the benefit of units. The creation of a salvage organisation for the utilisation of other waste products is being examined in conjunction with the other Departments concerned.

Mr. Macquisten: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the son of the late Mr. Hooley set up pig crays behind the camps and thus used all the waste, with great profit?

Mr. James Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in South Wales there is complaint of a shortage of food?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The question on the Paper appears to indicate that the contrary is also the case and that extra rations exist in some places.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (RESERVE OF OFFICERS).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can indicate when the services of the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers will be required?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: These officers have been and are being called up as required.

OVERSEAS SERVICE (YOUTHS)

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement with regard to youths of 18 and 19 years of age, indicating the position with regard to overseas service?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is not the policy to send overseas any man already serving until he has reached the age of 19, and it is not the present intention to call up men under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act to go overseas below the age of 20.

Mr. Davidson: For the sake of clarification may I ask whether the answer of the right hon. Gentleman means that a boy of 19 years of age who joined the Service voluntarily and was in his unit when the war was declared, is competent to go overseas and is being sent overseas?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is it not a fact that in some cases commanding officers are subalterns of 19?

Mr. A. Reed: What is the position of a young fellow of 18 who joined the Territorials before the war and has now been sent overseas?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: He will come back.

Mr. Davidson: Does this state of affairs coincide with the right hon. Gentleman's definite promise to the House when we discussed this position, and does he think it right that young men of 19 should be sent overseas when other classes will not be sent until they are 20?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: This meticulously follows what I promised to the House,


as the hon. Member will see from the Debate.

WAR COMMUNIQU É S.

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Secretary of State for War when it is intended to issue fuller communiqués regarding the Western Front operations, in lieu of the laconic ones at present being sent out, and thus save the public having to rely on versions given through the Press correspondents of other countries, which information is not known to be accurate?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The French G.Q.C. issue regular communiqués concerning operations on the Western Front. When the British Expeditionary Force is in action against the enemy, communiqués will be similarly issued.

NATIONAL DEFENCE COMPANIES.

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, owing to the high payments to air raid precautions personnel and the low rates of pay offered to the older men who comprise the National Defence Companies, recruitment for the latter has been most unsatisfactory; whether he will lower the age limit to 41 and remove the higher age limit so as to include fit older men who now come under no category; and whether he will make any statement as to improved conditions so as to ensure increased personnel for these companies and relieve Territorial units now guarding vulnerable points?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have in contemplation a change in the present method of manning vulnerable points.

ACCIDENT.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War why no reply has been sent to the National Union of Agricultural Workers to letters dated 1st August and 16th August in connection with an accident which occurred on 13th May to one of their members; and when a reply is to be expected?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have been unable to trace the letters from the particulars given, and the hon. Member has been asked for some additional information, on receipt of which I will have further inquiries made.

Mr. Williams: While apologising to the right hon. Gentleman for not getting the information to his Department as quickly as possible, although I did write yesterday giving particulars, may I ask whether, if I put down a question next week, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me an answer?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: There is no need to apologise at all. There is no trace of the letters in the registry, but as soon as I receive particulars from the hon. Gentleman I will do my best to give him an answer.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions have been issued to commanding officers, and what transport facilities have been arranged, to enable Members of Parliament serving in the Army to attend meetings of Parliament, visit their constituencies, and otherwise, so far as practicable, perform their Parliamentary duties?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I propose to answer this question more generally. The right of a Member of Parliament to attend upon the House cannot be impugned; but if such right were unreasonably or inappropriately invoked, it might become impossible for the military authorities to allow the Member in question to continue to serve with his unit. Normally these matters can readily be arranged between the serving Member and his commanding officer. Members can be trusted to judge rightly in the discharge of their obligations; and their services in the armed forces in time of war have always been highly valued by this House from the earliest days of Parliament. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has arranged that serving Members will, in appropriate cases, receive similar transport facilities in the United Kingdom, to and from their units for the purpose of attending Parliament, to those which they now receive when travelling to and from their constituencies.

Mr. Davidson: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "Members serving in the United Kingdom in appropriate cases "? Does that mean that any particular selection will be made?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. The request for leave must be appropriately related to the intention for which these facilities are to be made available.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: No doubt my Tight hon. Friend will recall that an order was issued to commanding officers before the war broke out with regard to the attendance in Parliament of Members serving in the Forces; does that order apply to war conditions?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I was not aware that any order was issued; but, obviously, the facilities available in time of peace are not so easily made available in time of war. I think I have shown the intention of the Government in this matter.

CHAPLAINS.

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that services of chaplains are not available to many of the new Army; whether he is satisfied that sufficient chaplains have been appointed; and whether there is any prohibition of parochial clergy rendering service in such cases, when requested?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: A sufficient number of chaplains has already been appointed to meet existing requirements, and there is an adequate number of accepted candidates to meet requirements for some time to come. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EVACUATION.

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the prospect of the war continuing for years, his Department will immediately consider the taking over of large houses and other suitable premises presently unoccupied, and equipping and staffing them as institutions for housing and educating children thereby relieving householders from bearing their present burdens for any prolonged period?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I have already indicated to local authorities in receiving areas that I shall be glad to consider any proposals which they may make for housing evacuated persons in large empty houses or other suitable premises. I would, however, remind my hon. and gallant

Friend that it would not be possible to provide accommodation for more than a relatively small proportion of the evacuated persons in this way, both on account of the limited number of large houses available and on account of the difficulty of securing adequate numbers of suitable persons to staff large boarding establishments for children.

Mr. W. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman especially consider making houses available, not for children but for adults, and especially for mothers evacuated in the countryside?

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir. We are taking that matter into account. The question refers to Scotland, and I can deal in my answer only with that area.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement of Government policy regarding the Scottish Special Areas; and whether he can announce the appointment of a new Commissioner?

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, seeing that the Commissioner for the Special Areas in Scotland has taken up active duties in the Royal Air Force, what provision has been made for the carrying on of the work of that office?

Mr. Colville: The Government's policy regarding the Special Areas was stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 21st September. In the absence of the Commissioner of the Scottish Special Areas on military service, the work of the office is being carried on meantime by the Assistant Commissioner. The question of a new appointment is under consideration.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour declined to reply to points relating to Scotland? May I refer to that answer now and ask whether the work in the Special Areas is to go on, as far as it may, in present conditions?

Mr. Colville: The answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour gave referred to the Special Areas in the whole country. He could not answer specific points about the Commissioner for the Special Areas in Scotland,


but if the hon. Member will read the answer I think he will see that it covers the question which he has raised.

ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR (SALE).

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that to enable prosecutions to be instituted for breaches of the no-treating regulation in the last war, it was the practice of the police to spend their Saturday afternoons in plain clothes in licensed premises to order beer and claim the cost thereof from the chief constable, who was advised of the practice, thereby committing breaches of the no-treating regulations; that this practice and all prosecutions ceased on public exposure in the court and Press; and will he see that no resurrection of any such regulation takes place now?

Mr. Colville: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that if further restrictions on the sale or consumption of alcoholic liquor become necessary the experience gained in the course of the last war will be borne in mind.

Mr. Macquisten: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this is a very grave matter; that two constables visited 44 licensed premises and bought 44 half-pints of beer; that in Leith the following week there were 15 visitations; that most of the witnesses were busily engaged in aircraft instruction and were very indignant at having their time wasted upon a trivial matter of this kind, and that they were asking whether the Government were mad?

MARRIED WOMEN (EMPLOYMENT, PERTH).

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of Staete for Scotland whether he is aware of the indignation that has arisen in Perth in consequence of so many married women whose husbands are fully employed being employed in Government offices since the outbreak of the war; that the Employment Exchange has on its lists unmarried women suitable for these positions; and will he take steps to replace these married women by unmarried women who are meantime drawing unemployment benefit and so reduce unemployment?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have been asked to reply. This

matter has not previously been brought to my notice. Immediately the local office at Perth became aware that women were being engaged by the Royal Army Pay Corps at Perth for employment in that office, arrangements were made for female applicants on the register to be considered for any vacancies arising. Since then 20 single women and five married women have been engaged, the married women being in receipt of unemployment benefit. No opportunity will be lost of securing the submission of the remaining female applicants on the register, so far as they are suitable.

HOUSING, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the strong feeling amongst Glasgow's houseless population at his instruction to Glasgow Corporation to suspend all preparations for new housing schemes until further notice and that no further commitments should be entered into for the building of houses; and as large numbers have no houses, as families of eight and nine persons per room are living in Glasgow and 60,000 names are registered for houses, will he cancel his instruction?

Mr. Colville: I am fully aware of the need for further housing accommodation in Glasgow to replace unfit houses and to end overcrowding. I regret, however, that I am not in a position meantime to relax the recommendations made to local authorities in the recent housing circular which I sent out. I sympathise with the natural disappointment which this circular must have caused to many people in Glasgow and in other areas, and I can assure the hon. Member I shall keep the whole position under constant review.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous number of people's claims which are unsatisfied as a result of the last war, and does he tell this House that he is satisfied to set aside the building regulations in Glasgow when there are 60,000 names down for houses? Are we to have another five or seven years' suspension of building, during which these people will have no houses at all?

Mr. Colville: I can only say that the decision was arrived at after very careful consideration of the present situation. The


hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the shortage of materials, which is a matter of great difficulty.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider this matter? In view of the fact that there is a certain amount of unemployment in the building trade and that certain materials are now available, could not discretion be given to the local authorities to build when they can?

Mr. Colville: I said that I would keep the matter under constant review, but I might tell the hon. Member that a deputation from the town council recently waited on my Department on the question of materials, which has been a real difficulty already.

Mr. McGovern: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the grave consequences of this decision, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter in this House as early as possible.

SCHOOLS, EDINBURGH (RE-OPENING).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered a resolution from a meeting of headmasters in Edinburgh asking that the schools be reopened; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir. These and other representations on the subject have received careful consideration. It has been decided that in evacuation areas, subject to certain safeguards which have been communicated to the school authorities, the secondary departments of schools providing five-year secondary courses may be reopened for all purposes. As regards primary schools and other schools not included in the previous category reopening may at present take place only for the purpose of providing medical inspection and treatment for small groups of children and in order to prepare a roll of the children remaining in the area.

Mr. Davidson: Does the opening of those schools depend on the amount of air-raid protection provided for the children?

Mr. Colville: That is a factor to be taken into account. When I mentioned safeguards I had that in mind.

Mr. Davidson: Is it the main factor to be taken into account by the local authorities?

Mr. Colville: That and the location of the schools.

WORKMEN'S TICKETS.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in view of the fact that many factories in Edinburgh and other places are arranging, during the winter months, to start work at 9 a.m., he will introduce legislation to amend the time in the morning for the issue of workmen's tickets in Scotland?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bernays): I have been asked to reply. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland nor I have any knowledge of the arrangements to which the right hon. Member refers, and, so far as I am aware, no difficulty has arisen regarding the regulations governing the issue of workmen's tickets in Scotland.

TRACTORS.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the Government's reserve of tractors have been, or will be, available to Scottish farmers?

Mr. Colville: On the basis of present estimates of the requirements of agricultural executive committees, it has been arranged that 300 tractors will be made-available to committees to assist in the work of increased food production in Scotland. About half this number are already available, and the remainder will be ready for use when the exact requirements of the committees are known.

Mr. Davidson: Have they been taken up with enthusiasm by Scottish farmers?

Mr. John Morgan: Will they be accompanied in each case by a set of agricultural implements?

Mr. Colville: I believe so.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Are any attempts being made to clear parts of Scotland which are being used for agricultural purposes from the bracken that is there?

Mr. Colville: That is another matter, but I should be glad to discuss it with the hon. Member.

FOOD PRODUCTION (AGRICULTURAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many county committees have been formed in Scotland for the purpose of increasing food production; and whether he can make a statement with regard to progress made?

Mr. Colville: In Scotland 40 agricultural executive committees were appointed on 4th September, the day after the outbreak of war. All these committees are at work, and up to the present have been mainly concerned with matters of organisation and with making plans for the performance of their duties during this autumn and the coming winter.

Mr. Davidson: Do the powers of those county committees include power to take over land which was not cultivated previously but is capable of being cultivated?

Mr. Colville: Wide powers rest with the Secretary of State, who may use the committees in connection with the exercise of these powers.

HEALTH SERVICES.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how, in view of the large sums spent on health services in the cities of Scotland and the repeated assurances that these services were adequate and efficient, he accounts for the serious bodily condition of so many of the persons recently evacuated; and whether, in order to allay public concern and safeguard public health, he will order an immediate inquiry into the health services of the cities of Scotland, and take urgent measures to act upon the findings of such inquiry?

Mr. Colville: I have been making inquiries, and, while I think there has been a tendency to exaggerate the position, it is the case that a proportion of evacuated children were suffering from skin diseases or were in a verminous condition. I do not, however, consider that an inquiry such as the hon. Member suggests would serve a useful purpose in present circumstances, but I have arranged that the local authorities of sending areas will make a thorough medical inspection and give whatever treatment is necessary before any further children are evacuated. I should add that the evacuation took place in conditions of urgency, at a time when the possibilities of supervision of the

children were necessarily curtailed because of the school holidays.

Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend, then, seek to ignore the fact that this unsatisfactory condition reflected by the evacuation is a must serious reflection on the social services of Scotland?

Mr. Colville: I do not ignore the fact; also I do not ignore the difficulties. I do not think that an inquiry of the type suggested would, under war-time conditions, serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Maclean: Is Scotland the only place where these allegations have been made?

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision to-day to stop building houses in Glasgow will make this much worse than it is already?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names of the Regional Commissioners and their deputies; the salary paid to each individual; the names of those who are accepting salaries and those offering themselves without salary, and, in the case of those giving voluntary service, the amount of expenses paid per day; and whether Members of Parliament are permitted to serve without resigning their seats?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 18th April to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby). In addition to the names then announced, the following appointments have been made: — 
To be Regional Commissioner for Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Western Division of Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston); to be Deputy Regional Commissioner for the Northern Region, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson); to be Deputy Regional Commissioner in Wales, the hon. Member; for Wrexham (Mr. Richards).
As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the


House on 1st September during the Second Reading of the Regional Commissioners Bill, when I gave particulars of the maximum salaries payable to regional commissioners and deputy regional commissioners. I then indicated that, in the Government's view, the wish of any gentleman appointed to receive no remuneration should be respected. The question of the remuneration, if any, to be accepted within the maxima allowed is one which rests with the commissioners or deputy commissioners themselves. In these circumstances, I believe that the House would not wish me to enter into any further particulars. I may, however, state that the Members of this House who have accepted appointment have in each case declined to accept any personal salary. With regard to the expenses to be paid to regional and deputy regional commissioners, these will have regard to the disbursements likely to be incurred by them in the course of their duties. In reply to the final part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Regional Commissioners Act, which enables Members of this House to retain their seats on accepting these appointments.

Mr. McGovern: When discussions take place in this House affecting the Departments or work of hon. Members who are regional or deputy regional commissioners, will they be free to take part in the discussions and defend the work carried out by them and answer any questions, or must the reports come through their chiefs, the Secretary for Scotland or the Home Secretary?

Sir J. Anderson: I have made it clear on previous occasions that the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown for the work upon which, or in connection with which, these gentlemen will be employed remains unimpaired.

Mr. McGovern: The question that I have asked has not been answered. Will Members of the House who hold these posts be expected, or free, to defend the work with which they are associated and reply to criticism of it, or must criticism be directed to their chiefs holding Ministerial posts?

Sir J. Anderson: Criticisms should certainly be directed, in the ordinary constitutional way, to the Ministers responsible. As regards any contribution

which any of the hon. Members in question might wish to make to the Debates in this House, that is a matter which must be left, I suggest, to the discretion and good sense of the Members in question.

Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that these Members will not be compelled to take part in debate from the Government side of the House, but will be free to keep up the illusion of being members of the Opposition?

Mr. George Griffiths: Is this the green eye of jealousy down there?

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Home Secretary whether there is included on the staff of regional commissioners any officer especially appointed to deal with finance and economy and for liaison purposes with the Treasury?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. There is on the staff of each regional commissioner an officer appointed by the Treasury to represent that Department.

Sir I. Albery: In that case may I ask how it arises that there is so much difference in the ratio of expenditure in different districts?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a different question.

PERSONNEL.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Home Secretary the number of salaried personnel employed in civilian defence; what is the cost to the State weekly; and what number of men and women have given, and are giving, their services without remuneration?

Sir J. Anderson: In reply to the first and second parts of the question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees on 21st September (Mr. Harold Macmillan). I regret that I am not at present in a position to answer the last part of the question.

Sir A. Knox: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to effect some economies in his Department by taking on more voluntary workers?

Sir J. Anderson: A large number of voluntary workers are engaged in Civil Defence, and I hope that nothing will be said in any quarter to discourage that form of service.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a rising feeling of indignation due to the fact that while there is a great volume of unemployment people are being paid wages who, at the same time, are earning large sums of money?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not aware of that.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Home Secretary whether householders in vulnerable areas, desiring Anderson steel shelters but not within the classes of persons at present entitled to free distribution, are to be required to wait for them until the free distribution has been completed throughout less vulnerable areas?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. As I intimated in reply to a question on this subject on 1st August, I had hoped that sales of these shelters might have begun this month. Owing to difficulties of production due to the outbreak of war the scheme for placing these shelters on sale has not yet been put into operation; but I hope to be able to bring it into effect early next month.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that very few Anderson shelters have been supplied in Nottinghamshire to the urban district councils of Hucknall, Kirkby, Arnold and Eastwood, and to the rural district council of Basford; and when the requisite number of shelters will be provided?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, but in view of the demand from the more exposed areas to which distribution is now proceeding I am afraid that it will be some time before supplies can be allotted to areas which are regarded as less liable to attack.

Mr. Cocks: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Hucknall is a dangerous area?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not in a position to give a direct answer to that question.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the provision of an inhalor or apparatus designed for the immediate treatment for the lungs of sufferers from a gas attack;

whether he is aware that inhalors have been prescribed; and whether he intends to recommend its inclusion in official air-raid precautions outfits?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry 0! Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is arranging for supplying to hospitals inhalor apparatus for those suffering from lung conditions whether caused by gas or otherwise.

Mr. Sorensen: Are they to be supplied to institutions other than hospitals?

Miss Horsbrugh: At present we are supplying these inhalors to hospitals where the treatment would be under these conditions.

Mr. Sorensen: Is there merely one type of inhalor?

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper.

LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).

Major Milner: asked the Home Secretary what steps have been taken by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to ensure compliance by Government Departments, and the War Office in particular, with the lighting regulations; and why, having regard to the repeated complaints of his officers and the fact that legal proceedings are being generally taken against the public for similar offences no such proceedings have been taken against the responsible authorities of the War Office?

Sir J. Anderson: Every possible step has been taken to impress upon the occupants of rooms in Government offices the importance of seeing that the special blinds which have been provided are drawn, before sunset, in such a way as to prevent any light from showing on the outside. As regards prosecutions, it is the practice of the Commissioner of Police to institute proceedings in cases where the Lighting (Restrictions) Order is deliberately or repeatedly infringed after warning has been given; but the infringements which have occurred in Government Departments have not been of this character.

Major Milner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many warnings have been given to the War Office, and why


there should be any differentiation as regards Government Departments?

Sir J. Anderson: There is no differentiation.

Major Milner: How many warnings have been given by the Metropolitan Police to the War Office?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think it is left to the Metropolitan Police to give warnings to the War Office.

Major Milner: Have any warnings been given to the War Office?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not know of any warnings that have been given by the Metropolitan Police.

Colonel Nathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman walk round the Horse Guards Parade and look at the Government offices with a view of ascertaining whether it is not the fact that practically every Government office on the Horse Guards Parade shows lights, which in the case of private individuals would involve a prosecution?

Sir J. Anderson: Inquiries and representations have been made to the Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure that the rationing of petrol does not prevent the completion of public air-raid shelters and other essential air-raid precautions?

Mr. Bernays: I have been asked to reply. I am informed that adequate supplies of petrol are available for work of this kind. If the hon. Member has knowledge of any case where difficulty has arisen and will let me have the necsessary particulars, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will consider granting an extra petrol ration to firms who have had some of their lorries requisitioned to enable them to utilise their remaining lorries as far as possible, and thereby minimise the present in equality of sacrifice as between individual firms?

Mr. Bernays: Extra petrol in addition to the basic ration is available for necessary work. A firm which has had part of its fleet of lorries requisitioned is likely to have more of such work for the remainder and, therefore, to receive additional fuel for them.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is proposed to issue vouchers for petrol supply to industrial organisations in units larger than five gallons?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. Coupons to the value of 10 units, 50 units and 100 units are available and have been issued to those who use petroleum for industrial purposes. Where such users have storage for bulk supplies a single permit for the necessary quantity has been issued in a number of cases.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is intended that motorists shall be required to continue to make application for their allotment of petrol every other month or whether pro vision will be made for longer intervals?

Mr. Lloyd: New ration books will be issued to motorists with effect from 23rd November, but I am not yet in a position to fix the period which will be covered by the second issue.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend try to make this as long as possible because the staffs in the divisional petroleum offices are very large and unnecessarily so, and they are also working very long hours, and any extension of the ration period before the issue of the books would greatly assist the staffs?

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman, when rationing next time, consider the doctors, who are very short of petrol and therefore cannot visit their patients?

Mr. Lloyd: Instructions have been given to divisional petroleum officers that they should give special consideration to the case of doctors. As regards the question of my hon. Friend, I think that the staffs are not unduly large having regard to the great volume of work at the initial period.

Mr. Maxton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread opinion among users of motor vehicles that, if the quality of spirit were substantially improved, a greater mileage could be secured?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will my hon. Friend consider extending the ration of petrol to people like commercial travellers in view of the necessity of keeping the trade and industry of this country going?

Mr. Lloyd: That is already under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORTS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement on the Government's proposals for the maintenance of our export trade?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on 6th September, His Majesty's Government will use every effort to ensure that this country's exporting capacity is used to the best advantage, consistently with the satisfaction of essential home requirements and overriding war needs; and they have under constant consideration the means that may be necessary to secure the fulfilment of this policy.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is constant contact between his Department, the Ministry of Supply and also the Ministry of Economic Warfare in relation to the production of materials available for export?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir; there is constant daily interchange between these three Departments.

FOREIGN FRUITS (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the grounds on which restrictions are imposed on imported fruits, with the exception of apples, at a time when glut conditions prevail in the home apple crop?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 13th September to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Morgan: Is it not the fact that apples are being allowed in and other fruit excluded when the home yield is so plentiful?

Mr. Stanley: I said in answer to the previous question that the import of apples was not so urgent a question; they come in at a later date than the other fruit. They are excluded at the moment in order to give an opportunity for discussion with the importing countries.

BALTIC STATES AND FINLAND.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any arrangements have been made for the continuity of trade between the Baltic States and Finland and this country; and whether British official trade representation in these countries will be maintained during the process of the war?

Mr. Stanley: I can assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government are anxious that trade between this country and the Baltic States and Finland should continue so far as the circumstances of war permit; and arrangements to this end are being made. British official trade representatives are still at their posts in these countries and it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to maintain them there.

Sir P. Hannon: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether that reply would apply generally to the export trade?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in relation to the export trade with these countries and to other countries, he is taking steps to see that the price level is not unduly raised?

Mr. Stanley: That, of course, is one of the most important aspects.

Mr. A. Reed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest difficulties in trading with Finland and other Baltic countries is the excessive war risks insurance, and will he look into that matter again, as 20 guineas per cent, is the usual rate on the London market?

Mr. Stanley: I will certainly consider war risk insurance, but I think my hon. Friend will realise that in the case of Finland and the Baltic States there are other practical difficulties in the way.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Sir Adrian Baillie: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the maintenance of the quota provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938?

Mr. Stanley: I am not yet able to announce what: arrangements will be made for the regulation of the cinematograph film industry to meet war-time conditions, but I can assure my hon. Friend that in considering this matter I shall keep fully in mind the importance of maintaining the production of British films during the war period. Meantime, the Act of 1938 is still in force and its provisions will not be modified without further consultation with the interests concerned.

Sir A. Baillie: I take it that the answer is that it is the wish of the President of the Board of Trade that British film production shall continue during times of war? Is he aware of the fact that, as a result of the prevailing and still persisting uncertainty in the industry as to future decisions of the Board of Trade, British film production to-day is at a standstill; and does he appreciate the fact that the finance for retaining technicians will not be available unless —

Mr. Speaker: rose —

SHIPBUILDING.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is in; ended to control the prices of materials used in the construction and equipment of vessels for the Mercantile Marine; and what steps will be taken whereby the high prices demanded for such tonnage during the late war may be avoided?

Mr. Stanley: The most important materials used in the building of merchant ships are iron and steel, and supplies and prices of these are already controlled by the Ministry of Supply. Some other materials which enter into the construction of ships, such as timber, are also already subject to control. The whole question of the cost of building new -ships will be kept constantly under" close observation with a view to deciding whether any other steps are necessary to prevent undue increases in cost.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that during the last war prices were four times the normal prices?

Mr. Stanley: Certainly, in the last war here were no such steps to control these prices such as have already been taken in the first three weeks.

HERRING TRADE.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the petition of the Herring Trade Association to have herring barrels and barrel-making materials exempted from compulsory insurance under the War Risks Insurance Act; and whether in view of the peculiar circumstances of the herring trade, he is prepared to make the desired concession?

Mr. Stanley: I have received the petition of the Herring Trade Association to which my hon. Friend refers and I am giving it urgent consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give consideration to the appointment of a Minister of Industry and Economic Reconstruction at an early date with the responsibility of examining and working out plans with local authorities and industry which will give employment to His Majesty's forces when returning to civilian life as well as those now employed on the manufacture of arms and munitions?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The subject is of great importance, but the conditions which will develop towards the close of hostilities are as yet so uncertain that the establishment of a separate Ministry now would be altogether premature.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this proposal will have consideration again in the early future?

The Prime Minister: It will have consideration again.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED WAR AIMS.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are considering issuing a statement of war aims in somewhat greater detail than hitherto?

Mr. White: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to consult with the French Government and in due course issue a joint statement of war and peace aims?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are in constant contact with the French Government, but I am not at present prepared to add anything to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) on 13th September, and to the statement which I made on 20th September.

Mr. V. Adams: While I fully appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether His Majesty's Government will bear in mind the importance of this matter in its bearing upon neutral countries?

The Prime Ministers: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CURRENCY (POSTAL ORDERS).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to bring to an end the use of postal orders as legal tender?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): As quickly as possible. It is not yet possible to say how soon the use of postal orders as currency will be completely unnecessary. My hon. Friend will appreciate that this was a precaution taken against any temporary local shortage of notes or silver due to large movements of the population.

Sir H. Williams: With a view to safeguarding the revenue, will my right hon. Friend restore the poundage so that people who want this currency may contribute as much to the revenue as they have done in the past?

Mr. Maxton: What is the objection to the use of Postal orders, which is the only currency the State issues?

Sir J. Simon: The reason why this provision had to be made was to provide against any difficulties that there might be in some parts of the country and in regard to the distribution of the population. The local banks could not be expected to have ordinary currency in the necessary quantities to meet that risk. Therefore, we have at the moment to allow postal orders to be used as legal tender.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the football pools do not get away with it?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR-TIME ECONOMY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make some statement to summarise the steps which have been taken to facilitate the establishment of war-time economy in the United Kingdom.

Sir J. Simon: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, most of the legislative activity of the last three or four weeks has been directed to adapting the economic organisation of this country to a war-time basis. I would particularly draw my hon. Friend's attention to the measures in the Emergency Statutory Rules and Orders dealing with finance and currency, the cultivation of land, the control of railways and of traffic at ports, the control of the prices of various commodities and the steps taken with a view to rationing motor fuel, household fuel and, in due course, certain articles of food.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the worst offenders in this respect are the Government Departments which are unwieldy and are ever increasing and is it not really officialdom run mad? There is no economy there.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES EXCHANGE RATE.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the stop on the American exchange at $4.03 now amounts to a 7½per cent, tax on all exports to, and a bonus of the same on all imports from America; and whether, in view of the importance of developing our export trade he will now remove this stop on the exchange.

Sir J. Simon: The rate of exchange which governs commercial transactions and other authorised business between this country and the United States is the official rate published daily in the Press. The right hon. Gentleman's question presumably refers to the fact that a limited number of transactions have taken place in other countries at a different rate. I do not think that the difference between the two rates, which has varied considerably but is now a matter of 1 per cent., can properly be regarded as a tax on exports and a bonus on imports. The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt appreciated the fact that a further depreciation of the £ sterling would inevitably


tend to involve an increase in the cost of imported materials from foreign countries and a consequent increase in the cost of living.

Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions (1) whether he can give the House now the rate of exchange that obtains in the free market between the dollar and the pound; and (2) whether he appreciates that this fixing of the exchange involves a very high rate of export duty on all exports from this country just at a time when we want to encourage exports to the utmost of our ability?

Sir J. Simon: I think the right hon. Gentleman in his supplementary question is really putting the argument contained in his original question.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is it true?

Sir J. Simon: I have pointed out that the difference as far as I know at present is one per cent.

Mr. Bellenger: In connection with the fixing of the dollar sterling exchange can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the tripartite agreement is still operating?

Sir J. Simon: I think I am right in saying that no party to the agreement has suggested that it is not operating.

Oral Answers to Questions — STOCK EXCHANGE REGULATIONS.

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to meet the position arising from the action of the Stock Exchange upon the outbreak of war, when it decreed that all balances carried over were to be liquidated forthwith, and fixed the prices of securities at a lower figure than the carry-over, thus forcing clients to realise securities at a loss?

Sir J. Simon: According to the information before me I think that my hon. and gallant Friend must have been misinformed on this matter. By agreement with the Government the Stock Exchange was closed from 1st September until 7th September. The Stock Exchange Committee, therefore, postponed the settlement due on 7th September until the next settlement fixed for 21st September. They also introduced temporary rules and regulations providing for the transaction of

business on a cash basis and prohibiting continuations except in connection with existing continuations already arranged. The only securities for which minimum prices have been fixed by the committee are those in the gilt-edged market, dealings in which are always for cash settlement and are not the subject of continuation arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (ARMY OFFICERS).

Mr. Loftus: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Army officers family allowances will be free of Income Tax?

Sir J. Simon: Income Tax is not charged on the family lodging allowances of Army officers except in a few special cases where the officers hold fixed appointments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY BILLS (INTEREST).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of interest on Treasury Bills three weeks ago; what was the rate of interest on Friday, 15th September; and what was the cause of the difference?

Sir J. Simon: The average rate of interest on Treasury Bills tendered for on 1st September (approximately three weeks before the hon. Member tabled his question) was £3 14s. 3d., the corresponding rate on 15th September was £ 3 11s. 1d., and on 22nd September £3 6s. 1d. The fall in the rate was due to a greater demand for Bills, reflecting increased cash resources of the banks and a clearing of the financial position.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government investigation into old age pension allowances has been abandoned or only postponed?

Sir J. Simon: As was stated in reply to questions on 13th September, the question of any general increase in the rate of old age pensions must, I am afraid, in this great emergency remain in abeyance for the time being. There is nothing that I can usefully add to that answer at present.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that decision, remembering that the cost of living is rising rapidly and that this allowance is grossly inadequate? Can-he not add a few shillings?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot accept the statement that the cost of living is rising rapidly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In any case the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this matter has been very carefully considered.

Mr. Hall: I am sorry but I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on an appropriate opportunity on the adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NON-COMBATANT POSTS (APPOINTMENTS).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what number of appointments to non-combatant posts with a salary of £500 a year and over have been created since the declaration of war; and what number of these are held by men between the ages of 18 and 41?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The information is, I regret, not available.

Sir A. Knox: Can my right hon. Friend say whether such appointments are looked after by the Treasury or is each Minister allowed to make any appointment he likes, at any salary?

Captain Crookshank: The Treasury is much concerned in all these matters.

Sir A. Knox: If the Treasury is concerned, why cannot the Treasury give a list of the appointments?

Captain Crookshank: The answer is that there are a great many things to do that are urgent to-day, and this would require a certain amount of investigation.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if an ordinary business were run in this way it would go absolutely bankrupt?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Pensions the nature of the organisation for dealing with pension claims and the

intended composition of any committees which may be set up for this purpose?

The Ministry of Pensions (Sir Waiter Womersley): The organisation for dealing with pension claims consists of a central Department for the award and payment of pensions, with an office in each Region for the receipt of claims and for any necessary local investigation. The central Department is being, and will be, expanded as necessary, and local offices will be expanded or additional offices will be opened according to local requirements. It is hoped that the existing local War Pensions Committees will perform the same functions on behalf of disabled members of the Services and the dependants of those killed as they are at present performing in Great War cases.

Mr. Lawson: Is it a fact that many of these committees are many years old and will the hon. Gentleman take steps to review the personnel and make it thoroughly representative?

Sir W. Womersley: I have met a number of the chairmen of war pensions committees who have agreed to call their members together, and, if necessary, add other people to the committees. I shall certainly see to it that these committees do function.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

CABLES (CENSORSHIP).

Captain Shaw: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information whether he will inquire into the inefficiency displayed by the censor's department in the cable and wireless offices in London, resulting in cables being held up for hours, to the detriment of British trade; why a reply can be got from New York in under three-quarters of an hour, while the censorship of cables from British Dominions entails a delay of hours; and whether he will see that in this matter justice is done to those trading with the British Dominions?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Sir Edward Grigg): The only cables for the censorship of which the Ministry of Information has any responsibility are Press cables. I am aware that there have been instances of delay in the past but the cause has often lain elsewhere than with the


censorship. Commercial cables are the responsibility of the Postal and Telegraph censorship, under the control of the War Office, and I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

STAFF.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information the total number of staff now employed at the Ministry; and how many are professional journalists?

Sir E. Grigg: The total staff employed at the headquarters of the Ministry number 872, and in the regional offices 127. The number of journalists actually engaged in that profession at the time of their appointment is 26 at headquarters and 17 in the regional offices. In addition, there are in the news division 48 officers who were appointed because of their familiarity with the Press relations work of Government Departments or the B.B.C., combined in many cases wtih previous journalistic or broadcasting experience.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister kindly take note of the concern of this House at the statement he has just made and offer us at an early date a more satisfactory explanation of this preponderance of officials as against professional people who understand newspaper work?

Sir E. Grigg: My Noble Friend recognises that the situation requires investigation —

Mr. Davidson: It requires evacuation.

Sir E. Grigg: — and we are taking steps to enable this investigation to be made. The Treasury will be involved in the necessary review.

Sir Percy Harris: Can the Minister say who made these appointments?

Sir E. Grigg: They were made in every case after full consultation with Treasury representatives.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that a great proportion of the officials of the Physical Fitness Department have been transferred to the Ministry?

Sir E. Grigg: I should not like to answer from memory, but I am answering further questions on this point to-morrow, and if they do not give the hon. Member

the information I hope he will repeat his question.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information how many members of his staff have sufficient knowledge of the German language to qualify as interpreters?

Sir E. Grigg: A knowledge of German has not been laid down as a qualification for appointment to the staff of the Ministry. It would, therefore, not be possible to answer the hon. Member's question accurately without holding a special inquiry. If, however, the hon. Member desires to know whether the Ministry contains a sufficient number of German linguists to deal with all its requirements in that language, my Noble Friend can assure him that such is the case.

Mr. Stokes: The Minister says that he has sufficient members on the staff who understand the German language. I believe he has only one.

Sir E. Grigg: There are a number but I cannot answer without notice.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the Minister make use of any Members of Parliament who speak and understand German and French?

NEWS BULLETINS.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information whether he is aware that the shifting of the time of the morning news bulletin on the wireless from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. is a serious inconvenience to many workers in Greenock and elsewhere who must leave their homes before 8 a.m.; and whether he will take steps to have the earlier hour restored and to have the mid-day news bulletin at 12.30 p.m. instead of 1 p.m. so that workers may hear it during their mid-day meal hour?

Sir E. Grigg: The B.B.C. have under constant review the question of the timing of bulletins. The hon. Member will be glad to learn that arrangements have already been made to introduce an additional news bulletin at 7 a.m. as from 1st October next, and my Noble Friend is passing on to the Corporation the suggestion as regards the mid-day bulletin.

Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister kindly see to it that when these news bulletins are given out over the wireless they give us some news?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

FISH DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has considered the urgent representations of the distributors in the Scottish fish trade regarding the proposed establishment of a distribution depot at Perth; whether he is aware that very serious financial loss and inconvenience to distributors and the public is involved in this proposal; and whether he will now consider the suggestion of the traders that the depot should be set up at a more convenient centre on the East Coast?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): As a result of the termination of the original scheme of control for fish the Perth depot is no longer in use.

MILK.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any substantial difficulties have arisen in regard to milk supply since the declaration of war?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: No difficulties in regard to milk supplies have been brought to my notice.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister regard that as a tribute to the work of the Milk Marketing Board, and does it not give a pointer to the value of having left existing organisations, that were functioning well before he took charge, to do their job?

Mr. Morrison: I am very glad indeed to be able to join in that tribute to the Milk Marketing Board, particularly in regard to their work in ensuring adequate supplies of milk in reception areas.

Sir H. Williams: Were they any difficulties in 1914, when there was not a Milk Marketing Board?

FOOD CONSUMPTION.

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will encourage the reduction of meals to two or three courses in public dining places?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I trust that pending the introduction of the rationing scheme everyone will impose upon himself or herself fair and reasonable limits in the

consumption of essential articles of food. I should not propose at present to introduce a definite restriction of the kind suggested in the question on meals served in catering establishments.

CONTROL COMMITTEES.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the normal procedure that should be taken by a local authority in setting up a local food committee to ensure that the committee should be truly representative of consumers as well as of retailers?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Food control committees are appointed by the local authority. The constitution of the committees in Great Britain is laid down in Article 2 of the Food Control Committees (Constitution) Order, 1939, Sub-section (3) of which provides that 10 of the 15 members shall be persons who in the opinion of the appointing authority are representative of all classes of persons within the area.

Mr. Cocks: In view of the necessity of preserving the spirit of national unity, does not the Minister feel that it is undesirable that members should be selected in an' case from only one political party?

Mr. Morrison: I think the best course is to leave the appointment of these committees in the hands of the local authorities who, under this proposal, in most cases would be the best judges of who are really representative of the people in their own area.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, assuming that on the local authority there is more than one political party, it is wise in the interests of smooth working, that members of other parties should be appointed in proportion?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should imagine that a local authority would in fact wisely, in order to secure a minimum of friction on such an important committee, see that due representation is given to all relevant interests in the area, but I am sure the House will agree with me that this is a matter in which one must trust the local authorities to exercise discretion.

Mr. Alexander: Does that mean that the Minister intends to make no representations to local authorities?

Mr. Morrison: If a case is brought to my notice where there is any improper appointment of persons, I will gladly look into it and use what powers I have, which are limited, to see that the matter is put right. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a question with regard to any particular local authority, I shall be glad to give him the answer which I have arrived at from my investigations.

RATIONING.

Mr. Loftus: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has considered the representations made that the present meat-rationing scheme will deprive the great majority of pork batchers of their means of livelihood; and whether he proposes to take action to amend the scheme?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The matter is receiving consideration.

Mr. Alexander: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the serious inconvenience to the trade and shortage in certain districts of important food commodities, he will now immediately introduce the rationing system in the principal staple foodstuffs.

Mr. Morrison: It has been decided to use the national registration forms as the basis for the issue of rationing documents, but there will be no avoidable delay in introducing rationing. I appreciate that until the machinery of control is completed by the introduction of the rationing scheme, food traders may be placed in some difficulty in meeting the demands of customers, and I ask for the co-operation of all members of the community in voluntarily restricting their demands to reasonable quantities during this transitional period. Every effort is being made to readjust the systems of distribution of essential foodstuffs so as to minimise the dislocation due to war conditions and ensure fair allocation of supplies to traders.

Mr. Alexander: Is the Minister aware, first, that there is an immediate and serious shortage in the amount of butter available this week; secondly, that although there is no basic shortage in the main supply of sugar, there is a very serious shortage in many areas, as the result of hoarding in other districts, due to the fact that there is no rationing; and

thirdly, that in the Department which he has taken over, for over two years we had made our preparations on the basis of immediate rationing in a few days after the outbreak of war; and when is this important step to be taken?

Mr. Morrison: In regard to butter, I am aware that there has been a dislocation in the supply owing to war conditions. As regards sugar, it is the fact that, although supplies on the whole are adequate, there has been in some districts greatly increased purchasing, in some cases up to 50 per cent, above the normal. This is a most deplorable practice, and I hope that all those who are indulging in it, will realise that they are causing difficulties and restriction of supplies in other districts and to other individuals. As regards the date of the rationing scheme, there are advantages in basing rationing upon the figures acquired from the operation of the enumerators under the registration scheme. These people by going from house to house can get a more accurate picture of the actual population for purposes of rationing than could be obtained through the post by the usual forms. It is a balance of advantage and disadvantage. The disadvantage of delaying rationing is fully appreciated, but I ask the House to agree that it is better to proceed as we are doing.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to give notice that in view of the nature of the reply, we shall raise this question in the course of the Debate to-day on the Motion for the Adjournment.

PRICES.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, when fixing prices for food he will consider that any increase in the price of food bears most hardly on poor persons such as old age pensioners, and as these people will lose when their relatives are called up and get less pay as soldiers than in their civil occupation, and, in view of the necessity of maintaining the morale of the civil population, he will take immediate steps to fix prices at a level which will not diminish the purchasing value of the old age pension?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The object of food control and rationing is to hold the retail price of essential foods at the lowest level consistent with the maintenance of


supplies. This policy is expressly designed to protect the interest of consumers with limited incomes, such as those referred to by the hon. Member.

Sir John Haslam: Will my right hon. Friend see that when prices are issued to the public, they do not always give a maximum price, as, for instance, at the present time, when they say that butter is 1s. 7d. a pound, and it can be bought at is. 3d. in most shops in the Kingdom?

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that prices are already going up, and will he take steps either to bring down the level of prices to the 10s. a week, or bring the 10s. a week up to the level of prices?

Mr. Morrison: There must be inevitably some rise in prices owing to conditions outside the control of the Government, hut it is the duty of my Department to see that only such rises as are inevitable take place and that there is no profiteering of any kind.

Mr. Kirkwood: As the Minister said that it is inevitable that there should be a rise in the price of certain articles, do the Government intend to make any provision to enable old age pensioners to meet that inevitable rise, when they have no other income than 10s. a week?

Mr. Morrison: That is another matter altogether.

SMITHFIELD MARKET.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will consider the reopening of Smithfield meat market?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I consider the public interest is best served by the present scheme of decentralisation.

Mr. Ammon: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically the same conditions obtain in regard to meat as obtained with regard to fish, and that there is waste and inadequacy, and that good food is being wasted?

Mr. Morrison: My inquiries do not bear that out at all. At the start of the scheme there were, as was inevitable, some difficulties until those in charge of the .depots got to know the peculiar conditions under which they worked. I am satisfied that now the scheme is working satisfactorily.

Where there has been a shortage of meat, it has arisen from causes quite different from this scheme to which reference has been made, such as the big demand for the Army, and so on.

Mr. Ammon: Where has the right hon. Gentleman made his inquiries in regard to the amount of meat that is being wasted as a result of its being taken out of cold storage and not distributed?

Mr. Morrison: I made inquiries through the channels open to me. If the hon. Gentleman has any case of that kind, I hope he will bring it to my notice so as to assist me in my duty of trying to avoid waste of any kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN CURRENCY HOLDINGS, UNITED KINGDOM.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any, and if so what, time limit permitted for the surrendering of foreign currency to the Treasury under the Defence (Finance) Regulations?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir, no delay is permitted. I must emphasise the importance of prompt compliance with the Regulations, under which every person resident in the United Kingdom is under immediate obligation to offer forthwith for sale to the Bank of England for the Treasury any of the following currencies which he may possess:

American or Canadian dollars,

French francs,

Swiss francs,

Belgium francs,

Dutch guilders,

Swedish or Norwegian crowns,

Argentine pesos.

Every person who has not already done so should immediately give his bankers the necessary instructions. If any person has no bank and is uncertain exactly what to do, any bank is in a position to advise him. The above applies both to amounts held on 2nd September, and to any amount since received, or which may be received in future, by way of payment for exports or otherwise. Cash payment will be made in sterling for all foreign currencies sold to the Bank of England on the basis of the official rates published daily in the Press. I must make clear that the obligation applies to


private individuals as well as to firms and companies; they are not entitled to retain holdings in the currencies named, whether for the purpose of carrying on their business or otherwise, without special permission. Failure to comply with this obligation may entail heavy penalties. I need not add that it is most desirable in the national interest that the Treasury should receive the full amounts available. What I have said of the currencies in question applies equally to gold coin and bullion. Small amounts of token coin (that is, coin other than American or Canadian dollars) need not be offered for sale as above.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply also refer to bank deposits that may be held abroad by British citizens?

Sir J. Simon: Yes. Certainly it applies to any foreign currency which British residents here control.

Mr. Bellenger: Would that mean that bank deposits would come under this rule?

Sir J. Simon: If, for example, a British trading firm has an account in New York in which it is holding dollars, those dollars so held in New York are within these Regulations, and should all be reported.

Colonel Nathan: Will this apply to persons resident here irrespective of whether they are themselves British or not?

Sir J. Simon: I am greatly obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The expression in the answer was "Persons resident in the United Kingdom." There is no exemption in the Regulation for any person who is resident here but who is not British. If they reside here, I think everybody will agree that they ought to come within the scope of this Regulation.

Mr. Thorne: What are you going to do with the defaulters? How are you going to exercise authority?

Sir J. Simon: There are specific penalties provided.

Mr. Thorne: Put them into operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINE ACCIDENT, AIRDRIE.

Mr. Barr: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any

statement to make as to the disaster at Mosside Mine, Airdrie, on Friday, 22nd instant.

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I have received the inspector's preliminary report. This is a small mine working an area of coal between two waterlogged areas, plans of which were available. An inrush of water occurred about noon on 22nd September. Five of the men underground escaped to the surface but three others lost their lives. Some time will elapse before the mine can be unwatered and investigations made underground, and in the meantime I cannot make a fuller statement. The House will join with me in expressing the sympathy we all feel with the relatives of those who were lost.

WAR SITUATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

3.55 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): My first task to-day is to give a report to the House of the second meeting of the Supreme War Council which was held on 22nd September, this time in England. The meeting was attended by M Daladier, M. Dautry, General Gamelin and Admiral Darlan for France and by Lord Halifax, Lord Chatfield and myself for Great Britain. It was a great pleasure to us to be able to welcome M, Daladier and his colleagues to our shores. The Council met in the morning and again in the afternoon. I am glad to be able to inform the House that we found ourselves in complete agreement with the French representatives on the course to be followed to meet developments which had taken place since our last meeting on 12th September and to give effect to the Allied plans. Agreement was also reached on the procedure for co-ordinating and perfecting the arrangements to be made by the two Governments on the question of munitions and supplies.
Since my last statement on 20th September the effects of the action of the Soviet Government on the position in Poland have become clearer. The Soviet forces have everywhere rapidly advanced and on 23rd September a German-Soviet communiqué was published in Moscow, according to which the German and Soviet Governments had established a demarcation line between the German and Soviet armies running roughly North and South from East Prussia through Warsaw to the junction of the Hungarian and Slovak frontiers. It will be noticed that this line brings the Soviet forces up to the suburbs of Warsaw and leaves the greater part of Galicia and of the Polish oil wells in Soviet control. The communiqués recently issued by the Red Army do not, however, suggest that the Soviet troops have as yet occupied all the territory allotted to them under this arrangement, which amounts to more than half the total area of the Polish Republic. In these circumstances, the Polish armies, taken in rear as well as in front, have naturally been unable to maintain their ground. The Polish

people have not, however, given up the struggle and the whole world is deeply moved by the magnificent heroism of the defenders of Warsaw and the Hel peninsula, who are still holding out against the surrounding German forces in spite of ruthless and continuous bombardment.
In my statement on 20th September, I made a brief reference to the problems with which the Rumanian Government had been confronted by the passage of Polish troops and civilians into Rumanian territory. His Majesty's Government were watching with sympathy the efforts of the Rumanian Government to meet these problems, when they learnt of the cowardly assassination of M. Calinescu, the Rumanian President of the Council, on 21st September. His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest was at once instructed to convey to the Rumanian Government an expression of the horror of His Majesty's Government and of the British people at this outrage and their sincere and heartfelt condolence in the great loss which Rumania had thereby suffered.
On the Western front, the French have continued to make progress in certain localities and have succeeded, notwithstanding increasingly energetic German reaction, in maintaining all their gains intact.
In the air, the normal work of reconnaissance and anti-submarine patrol in co-operation with the Royal Navy, has been continued. The House will have heard with interest and pride of the rescue of the master and crew of the "Kensington Court" by two Royal Air Force flying boats and will, I am sure, desire to join with me in congratulating the officers and men concerned upon their enterprise and skill.
Many attacks have again been made on enemy submarines. The great developments in the endurance, speed and reliability of aircraft since the last war have enabled them to play a most important part in the work of defeating the submarines. The value of the employment of aircraft for this purpose is not limited to reconnaissance reports or to the attacks carried out, but consists also in the fact that the continuous air patrols make it far more dangerous for hostile submarines to come to the surface. The work of the Coastal Command patrols has thus proved


of the utmost assistance to the Royal Navy in combating the submarine menace.
I do not propose to say anything to-day about the war at sea as my right hon. Friend the First Lord will make a full statement on this subject, after I sit down.
In the Dominions, the preparations of His Majesty's Governments continue with gathering momentum. Dominion naval vessels are co-operating with our own. Dominion army units are being trained for service as circumstances may demand. Dominion air strength is being made ready for use overseas.
Nor should I forget to mention another most important contribution which is being made. As the result of close cooperation, supplies of finished munitions, raw materials and foodstuffs from the Dominions are being made available, in ever increasing volume for the common cause.
In the previous reports which I have made to the House I have dealt fully with the Civil Defence Services and there is little which it is necessary for me to say on this subject to-day. I would only emphasise again that nothing must be done either by way of relaxing our restrictions or reducing the scale of our preparations which is likely to make us less capable of meeting the air menace by which we are constantly threatened.
I have endeavoured in what I have said so far to give to the House, as I have done on previous occasions, a brief resume of events abroad and on the various fronts and of the activities of our fighting and defence services. I think, however, that it may be of interest to the House and to the country if I make my main theme to-day the development of some of the vast undertakings, vital to the winning of the war, now being entered upon on the Home Front, and the repercussions of these undertakings upon the national life.
Let me begin with a short account of the work of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. This Department will perform, broadly speaking, the functions which were carried out in the last war by the Ministry of Blockade, but, whereas this last Ministry was not set up until 1916, the Ministry of Economic Warfare has

been under organisation for the past two years, and the complete staff necessary to run it was selected many months ago. The general object of the Ministry is to disorganise Germany's economic structure to such an extent as to make it impossible for her to carry on the war. For every man in the front line you must have many behind the lines, engaged in the production and servicing of the weapons of war, and, if Britain can prevent Germany from importing the raw materials essential for the functioning of her war industries, the result will be effectively to cripple her power to prolong hostilities.
A word of warning against over-optimism is necessary. Germany already possesses stocks of varying size of the raw materials which she requires to import, and quick results cannot, therefore, be expected from the Ministry of Economic Warfare. But our command of the sea means that from the day war broke out Germany was cut off from many of her sources of supply, and the figures for the first three weeks of war show that we have seized about 256,000 tons of goods as to which there was evidence that they were contraband consigned to Germany. These include some 62,000 tons of petroleum products, 65,000 tons of iron ore and 37,000 tons of manganese ore.
German propaganda has meanwhile been active in alleging that our contraband control will have no effect on Germany, as she is self-sufficient, but will, on the other hand, completely strangle neutral trade. I do not know which of these statements is further from the truth. The fact is that we made it plain from the beginning of the war that we were anxious to take account of the bona fide trading needs of neutral countries and that His Majesty's Government would gladly consider any suggestions which neutral Governments might put forward for this purpose. Friendly discussions are now taking place with a number of Governments and His Majesty's Government hope in certain cases to come to arrangements with them which will still further simplify the procedure of contraband control. Facts speak for themselves and neutral opinion will, I am sure, make its own comparison between our clearly declared policy on the one hand and on the other the


thinly veiled menaces of Germany towards neutrals, menaces which in the past few days have been translated into action by the sinking of three neutral ships under circumstances constituting a clear breach of international law.
Much play is made in German propaganda of the inclusion of foodstuffs in the category of conditional contraband and it is represented that we are thereby conducting an illegal and inhumane blockade. But in this respect a naval blockade is in no way different from a land siege and no one has ever suggested that a besieging commander should allow free rations to a besieged town. In any case the German Government should be the last to make such an accusation at a time when their submarines are attacking all shipping coming to these islands with a complete and callous disregard of humanity and of the rules of submarine warfare to which they had solemnly agreed.
In its effects upon the life of the nation the great change that is now taking place in the scope and purpose of industry is all-important. Practically the whole force of our industry has now to be concentrated, directly or indirectly, on war needs, and the size and difficulty of some of the problems involved in this changeover were made apparent in the Debate last week on the work of the Ministry of Supply. If this great task is to be carried through successfully the co-operation of the workpeople themselves is the first essential, and I take this opportunity of declaring that the Government are ready and anxious to take any steps that may be necessary to secure their good will.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply said in the course of the recent Debate:
There is no single factor of greater importance than that representatives of organised labour should approve the general framework of the expansion scheme." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st September, 1939; col. 1101, Vol. 351.]
Later in the Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply indicated that it was proposed to set up Area Advisory Committees
 consisting not only of business men in the areas but representative of labour working in the areas 
and he stated further that
if representative working people will come in and help us on these Committees, they

will do so on a complete equality. "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st September, 1939; col. 1169, Vol. 351.]
It is not always easy, however sincere may be the intention, to formulate a satisfactory scheme at the commencement of the operation of a Department of such a wide scope as that of the Ministry of Supply: but given a desire to achieve the same object, it should not be difficult to adjust the scheme in a manner to secure that willing co-operation of all parties to industry which we so much desire. We shall be very glad to consider any proposals made to us to this end and I feel sure that it will be recognised that in suggesting that the problems of labour as such should in general be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour, it was not intended to exclude other methods of associating labour with supply problems.
The full organisation of the country's resources requires more than machinery for the regulation of working conditions and of employment, and it is the view of the Government that the support of both employers' and workers' organisations is essential if this country is to put forth its maximum effort. The hon. Members for Barrow (Sir J. Walker-Smith) and East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) have been associated together in a method of co-operation between Government Departments, employers' organisations and trade unions in the form of a Joint Consultative Committee which has played a great part in ensuring the smooth operation of the enormous building programme which has for so long been in progress. The course which has been followed in this case will probably be desirable in others, and, as was shown in the Debate on the Ministry of Supply Bill, and by discussions that have taken place since, it is the policy of the Government to provide all proper means by which this co-operation can be made effective.
In the great engineering industry, which occupies so important a place in our national effort, we have been much encouraged by the initiative shown by the responsible authorities in that industry in preparing for an expansion of the labour supply. The trade unions, which have agreed under proper safeguards to relax their normal conditions, have saved us from the difficulties which confronted us in the last war and have made a contribution for which the whole country is grateful. There is, in fact, no country in


which the Government is assured of more organised assistance than that at our disposal. Discussions are taking place which will, I hope, wiuthin the next few days lead to a conference between the Minister of Labour and the representatives of the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress which may have most important results. It will, I hope, begin the construction of a joint machine for the regular discussion of common problems.
Finally, I wish to say a word to the House and through the House to the country about our general attitude to the war. No one can doubt that, in modern warfare, it is upon the determination, courage, and endurance of ordinary men and women that victory ultimately depends. No one familiar with conditions in this country can have any doubt as to where we stand in these respects. Never have our people been more united or more determined. They are resolved — and the simple fact cannot be too often stressed — to rid themselves once for all of the perpetual threat of German aggression of which Poland is only the latest instance. We and France entered the war to rid ourselves and the world of that menace, and our peoples are united as they have never been united before in their resolve to achieve that purpose.

U-BOAT WARFARE.

4.13 p.m.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill): The war at sea opened with some intensity. All our ships were going about the world in the ordinary way, when they were set upon by lurking U-boats, carefully posted beforehand. In the first week our losses in tonnage were half the weekly losses of the month of April, 1917, which was the peak year of U-boat attack in the late War. That was a very serious proportion. We immediately replied in three ways. First, we set in motion the convoy system. This could be very quickly done for all outgoing ships, but it took a fortnight to organise from the other end the convoys of homeward-bound ships. This system is now in full operation — in full operation both ways. Meanwhile, however, large numbers of ships which had started independently, under the ordinary conditions of peace, had day after day to run the gauntlet of the waiting U-boats with-

out being either armed or escorted, and in consequence a serious, though, I am glad to say, diminishing, toll was exacted. The convoy system is a good and well-tried defence against U-boat attack, but no one can pretend that it is a complete defence. Some degree of risk and a steady proportion of losses must be expected. There are also other forms of attack besides U-boats, attacks from surface craft and from the air, against which we must be on our guard. I can assure the House that every preparation is being made to cope with such attacks, but I must again warn the House that we cannot guarantee immunity and that we must expect further losses.
Our second reply to the U-boat attack is to arm all our merchant vessels and fast liners with defensive armament against both the U-boat and the aeroplane. For a fortnight past armed ships have been continually leaving the harbours of this island in large numbers. Some go in convoy, some go independently. This applies not only to the United Kingdom, but to our ports all over the world. Thus in a short time the immense Mercantile Marine of the British Empire will be armed. As we usually have 2,000 ships on salt water every day, this is a considerable operation. However, all the guns and equipment are ready at the various arming stations, together with a proportion of trained gunners to man them and to instruct the ordinary seamen. Let me pay my tribute to the care of my predecessors at the Admiralty, who have provided so well for this contingency.
Our third reply is, of course, the British attack upon the U-boats. This is being delivered with the utmost vigour and intensity. It is a strange experience to me to sit at the Admiralty again, after a quarter of a century, and to find myself moving over the same course, against the same enemy, and in the same months of the year — the sort of thing that one would hardly expect to happen. But it gives me an opporunity of making comparisons which, perhaps, no one else could make, and I see how much greater are the advantages which we possess to-day in coping with the U-boat than we did in the first U-boat campaign 25 years ago. In those days there were moments when the problem seemed well-nigh insoluble. Very often to hunt down a U-boat it was necessary to use a flotilla of 15 or 20 vessels


working together for a whole day on the vaguest indications. Now two destroyers or even one can maintain prolonged and relentless pursuit. A very large number of attacks have been made by our flotillas and hunting craft. Of course, there are many false alarms, some even of a comical character. Still, it is no exaggeration to say that the attacks upon the German U-boats have been five or six times as numerous as in any equal period in the Great War, in which, after all, they did not beat us.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned last week the figure of six or seven U-boats destroyed. That was, as he said, probably an understatement. Since then we have had some fruitful and hopeful days; but even taking six or seven as a safe figure, that is one-tenth of the total enemy submarine fleet as it existed at the declaration of war destroyed during the first fortnight of the war, and it is probably one-quarter, or perhaps even one-third, of all the U-boats which are being employed actively. All these vessels, those that have been sunk and those that have escaped, have subjected themselves to what is said to be one of the most trying ordeals which men can undergo in wartime. A large proportion never return home, and those who do have grim tales to tell. But the British attack upon the U-boat is only just beginning. Our hunting force is getting stronger every day. By the end of October we expect to have three times the hunting force which was operating at the beginning of the war, while at the same time the number of targets open to U-boats upon the vast expanses of the seas and oceans will be greatly reduced by the use of convoys, and, at the same time, the U-boat means of attacking them will be heavily clogged and fettered.
In all this very keen and stem warfare the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm, as the Prime Minister has already mentioned this afternoon, have played an important part both in directing the hunting destroyers upon their quarry and in actually attacking it themselves. It was to bridge the gap between what we had ready at the beginning and what we have ready now that the Admiralty decided to use the aircraft carriers with some freedom in order to bring in the unarmed, unorganised and unconvoyed traffic which was then approaching our

shores in large numbers. Risks have to be run all the time in naval war, and sometimes grievous forfeit is exacted. The "Courageous" was attended by four destroyers, but two had to go to hunt a U-boat attacking a merchant ship towards evening. When the "Courageous" turned into the wind at the dusk in order to enable her own aircraft to alight upon her landing deck, she happened, by what may have been a hundred to one chance or more, to meet a U-boat in her unpredictable course.

Mr. Bellenger: But only two destroyers?

Mr. Churchill: But that is the great problem for us — to find destroyers for our many needs, many needs which I cannot mention to the House, which make great demands upon us. This hard stroke of war in no way diminishes our confidence in the methods now at our disposal. On the contrary, our confidence in them has grown with every day they have been employed, and I believe that their potency will become more apparent in proportion as the great numbers of new vessels come into action, and in proportion as our hunting officers get the knack of using depth charges by frequent practice.
Therefore, I cannot feel at the end of the first three weeks of the naval war that the judgment formed by the Admiralty before the war — which I myself, after having been afforded full opportunity of seeing it at work, endorsed as a private Member — was at fault or stands in any need of revision, except perhaps in a favourable sense. In the first week our losses by U-boat sinkings amounted to 65,000 tons; in the second week, they were 46,000 tons; and in the third week they were 21,000 tons. In the last six days we have lost only 9,000 tons. One must not dwell upon these reassuring figures too much, for war is full of unpleasant surprises, but certainly I am entitled to say that so far as they go these figures do not need to cause any undue despondency or alarm.
Meanwhile, the whole vast business of our world-wide trade continues without interruption and without appreciable diminution. Great convoys of troops are escorted to their various destinations. The enemy's ships and commerce have been swept from the seas. Over


2,000,000 tons of German shipping is now sheltering in German, or interned in neutral, harbours. Our system of contraband control, to which my right hon. Friend has just alluded, is being perfected, and so far as the first fortnight of the war is concerned, for which alone I have the figures, we have actually arrested, seized and converted to our own use 67,000 tons more German merchandise than has been sunk in ships of our own. Even in oil —

Mr. Benjamin Smith: But you have lost the ships.

Mr. Churchill: — where we were unlucky in losing some tankers, we have lost 60,000 tons in the first fortnight and gained 50,000 tons from the enemy, apart from the enormous additional stores we have brought safely in in the ordinary way. Again, I reiterate my caution against over-sanguine deductions. We have, however, in fact got more supplies in this country this afternoon than we should have had had no war been declared and no U-boat had come into action. It is not going beyond the limits of prudent statement if I say that at that rate it will take a long time to starve us out.
I will now deal a little with the character of this warfare. From time to time the German U-boat commanders have tried their best to behave with humanity. We have seen them give good warning and also endeavour to help the crews to find their way to port. One German captain signalled to me personally the position of a British ship which he had just sunk, and urged that rescue should be sent. He signed his message, "German submarine." I was in some doubt at the time as to what address I should direct a reply. However, he is now in our hands, and is treated with all consideration.
But many cruel and ruthless acts have been done. There was the "Athenia," then later the "Royal Sceptre," whose crew of 32 were left in open boats hundreds of miles from land and are assumed to have perished. Then there was the "Hazelside"— only the day before yesterday — 12 of whose sailors were killed by surprise gunfire, in an ordinary merchant ship, and whose captain died in so gallant a fashion, going

down with his vessel. We cannot at all recognise this type of warfare as other than contrary to all the long acquired and accepted traditions of the sea. We cannot recognise it as other than a violation of the laws of war, to which the Germans themselves have in recent years so lustily subscribed. But it is a measure of the success of our attack upon the U-boats in the last few days that they seem, as the Prime Minister has told us, to prefer neutral shipping or humble fishing boats to our regular merchant ships. Finnish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek, Norwegian and Belgian ships have been sunk on the high seas, in an indiscriminate manner, and with loss of life. In all the far-reaching control, becoming increasingly more effective, which we ourselves are exercising upon the movements of contraband no neutral ship has ever been put in danger, and no law recognised among civilised nations has been contravened. Even when German ships have deliberately sunk themselves to avoid the formalities of the Prize Court we have so far succeeded in rescuing their crews.
Such is the U-boat war — hard, widespread and bitter, a war of groping and drowning, a war of ambuscade and stratagem, a war of science and seamanship. All the more must we all respect the resolute spirit of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine who put to sea with alacrity, sure that they are discharging a duty indispensable to the life of their island home.
What of the future? In the last war the first U-boat attack in the winter of 1914 was beaten off by such primitive measures as we could devise, and thereafter there was a long pause. Then came a terrible change. A much larger number of U-boats were built and launched upon the seas in the summer and autumn of 1917; but by that time we also had great counter-preparations ready. We have made great progress in these counter-preparations at the present time, and if we must expect a renewed and more severe attack at a later stage we have every reason to believe that our arrangement's will be adequate to meet it. Let it be noted that in the late War one-third of the damage done to British and neutral commerce, one-third of the whole vast catalogue of damage from U-boat attack, was due to 25 experienced professional U-boat captains belonging to the old submarine service of Germany. It


would seem from this that it will be much easier for our enemies, who seek our destruction, to build more U-boats than it will be to replace the highly-skilled limited class of professional officers and crews who are now being captured or destroyed.
Moreover, if we are losing tonnage we are also taking steps to replace it on a far larger scale. Old ships which were laid up are being refitted and prepared for sea. An enormous building programme of new ships of a simple character, capable of being very rapidly built, is already in full career, in fulfilment of the action taken and of the plans made before the war by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. We therefore, hope to have a much larger margin in the future to meet new forms of attack or new scales of attack.
The House will observe that I have confined myself this afternoon entirely to this topic of U-boat warfare. I am not attempting now to deal with any of the other widespread activities of the Royal Navy, or with any other of those grave problems which require vigilance and merit description. As occasion serves, as events suggest, I shall seek other opportunities of making statements to the House. But, after all, the U-boat attack upon British ocean-wide commerce was one of the most heart-shaking hazards of the last war. It seemed during the early months of 1917 that it might compass our total ruin. Only those who lived through it at the summit know what it was like. I was not at that time in office, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of those days, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), kept me closely informed, and I watched with a fear that I never felt at any other moment in that struggle the deadly upward movement of the curve of sinkings over the arrival of new construction. That was, in my opinion, the gravest peril which we faced in all the ups and downs of that war. We have no reason, upon the information and experience which are now available, to suppose that such a situation will recur. And if this surmise — and it cannot be more than that — should prove correct, what does it mean? It means that one primary danger is falling into its proper confines, and that amid ill our anxieties we can feel a certain steady measure of assurance that, so far

as the submarine is concerned, the British Empire and all its friends in every quarter of the globe will be able to develop their immeasurable latent force and that the whole strength, wealth, resources and man-power of these many communities can be concentrated in ever growing intensity upon the task we have in hand, in which task we have only to persevere to conquer.

WAR SITUATION.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I am quite sure that the whole House will have welcomed the robust, vigorous statement by the right hon. Gentleman. It struck a note of optimism, but not of wild optimism — a cautious optimism, an optimism that weighed the possibilities of the unexpected. He gave us a reassuring account of the position of this country at sea. I am quite sure that the whole House will be in agreement with the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid to the personnel of our Mercantile Marine, and would add to that of our fishing fleet and the Mercantile Marine of other countries; because in this matter we are defending the rights of all seafaring nations to go about on their lawful occasions without this kind of assassination, and the courage which is shown by us and was shown in the last war by many seamen of neutral countries is being shown by those seamen to-day. I am quite sure that we shall join also in our admiration of the work of the Navy and of the Air Force in the work that has been done. I think it is most valuable that we should know as far as possible the details of this kind of work. The description that we had the other day of the rescue of the captain and crew of a vessel by flying boats was just the kind of news that the country ought to have and I hope that, as far as the exigencies of the service will allow, we shall get to know these stories of the heroism both of our Mercantile Marine and of our fighting Services. Generally speaking, the right hon. Gentleman has given us a most encouraging account, and we may well believe that this particular menace is now on the way to being got under control.
I should like to turn now to one or two of the points made by the Prime Minister. He gave us a survey of the


situation. I think the whole country, indeed the whole world, is standing in admiration of the heroic defence of Warsaw by the Poles. They are undergoing a terrible ordeal. They are standing up in the most extraordinary fashion to overwhelming forces. We should also join with him in our sympathy for the people of Rumania. There is too much of this weapon of assassination to-day. No one knows quite how far it goes. We cannot always determine quite who are the victims of assassination, for assassination is one of the weapons of Hitlerism.
I welcome very much the Prime Minister's statement of the close co-operation that we have with France with regard to supplies. We welcome the closest cooperation with our French allies in every respect. I hope there will be the closest co-operation, also, in economic policy in its wider aspects, and it is my intention to-day to raise one or two points on the economic side of the carrying on of this war. These weekly statements by the Prime Minister give the House an opportunity of ventilating suggestions and criticisms even on points which are not covered by the statement. He dealt with the question of economic warfare. He alluded to the Debate that we had on the Ministry of Supply. In the course of that Debate on all sides of the House there was a good deal of evidence of disquiet with regard to our industrial position. Much stress was laid on the need for maintaining our export trade, and there was very full recognition of the importance of the economic side of the war. I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down emphasised that as well.
But I am disturbed because I do not find that the importance of the economic side of the war finds any recognition in the composition of the War Cabinet. There is only one member of it who has ever had any dealings with trade questions intimately, and that is that protean Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who 30 years ago was at the Board of Trade. Otherwise there is no member who has had close contact with economic questions, and there is no member who is carrying out an economic function, and I think that is a very serious weakness. I am not dealing with any criticism of the persons composing that Council. I am dealing with the functions

that are represented there. We have Ministers representing foreign affairs and finance, the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) and Lord Hankey, and we have no fewer than four Service Ministers, three of whom are charged with heavy Departmental functions. I suggest that that is the wrong composition for a War Cabinet, and that Members with heavy Departmental responsibilities should not be in the War Cabinet. Again, I am not dealing with persons but with the holders of particular offices. The supreme War Cabinet ought to be composed of people who are dealing with functions and not Departments. In the Government we have the President of the Board of Trade, the Ministers of Overseas Trade, Economic Warfare and Supply, and we have also the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, I believe, is mainly concerned with food. Those Ministers are none of them in the supreme War Cabinet. I think that is an error. I think it is essential that in any consideration of the carrying on of the war the economic side should be always in the mind of those who are directing it.
I suggest that there should be in the Cabinet someone who is charged with the function of economic planning, not only from the point of view of our war effort but also from the point of view of what I might call the major strategy of our overseas trade, which, I think, is of vital importance in considering our relations with neutrals, and also with the economic planning of this country because, after all, that, as has been stressed in the House, is the important thing at the back of our fighting forces — the economic life of the country. To-morrow we shall be discussing the Budget. We shall be given the figures by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the realities behind those figures are the production of goods and the rendering of services by the citizens of the country. It is in my mind that at present we are not really getting that mobilisation of our resources and that utilisation of our personnel that we ought to have. Granted that there must be a time lag, granted the difficulty of the change-over, yet we are to-day encountering a large amount of unemployment — a great deal of unemployment among workmen and a great deal of unutilised services among people in professions and


in the trades that are necessarily going out of business owing to war conditions. I do not think that at the present moment we are taking up that slack with enough vigour. There is nothing more disheartening to people who are offering their services than to be told, "There is nothing we can offer you at present." There is a further point which will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) later, and that is with regard to distribution and prices. I will not allude to it now, but there, again, it seems to me that we want to get more grip.
Another point that I should like to raise is the vital question of the morale of our people. I believe that that morale is very high. It has to be kept very high. I have a most complete faith in our victory; I am absolutely convinced of it, and we want all our people to be equally convinced. We have to keep that morale high, and we shall do it by telling our people the truth. At the present time there is a danger of not giving enough of the truth. There is complaint that there is not enough information, and that the Ministry of Information is tending to be a Ministry to withhold information.
You can criticise the Ministry of Information but, after all, it is in a comparatively junior position, and it is a question whether we are getting the right solution between the natural demand of the Service Ministers for secrecy and the demand of the Ministry of Information that people should get the information that is required. I suggest that you want very careful decisions in this matter. Again, I suggest that there should be someone in the War Cabinet specially charged with considering the effect of all measures upon the morale of our people. Information is vital, and the one particular side of it that I should like to stress at the present time is broadcasting. There is very wide criticism of broadcasting. I am not a habitual listener, but I must say that at times I feel depressed when I listen in. You should not be depressed by listening in. I think that the standard has been lowered lately, just at the time when it ought to be very high. That is one of the things by which the world judges us.
I would say to the Prime Minister that I think it is most important that we

should get better and fuller information. That does not in the least mean the giving away of war secrets. Almost inevitably, if it is left to the ultimate decision of the Service Departments, the person in charge will always err on the side of no information. That is the well-known panic of all censorships. Everyone knows the well-known story of years ago, relating, I think it was, to the Turkish censorship. That department censored an item of news which came in, relating to some engine that was capable of 100 revolutions per minute, and was regarded as an extremely dangerous thing. That censorship was overcautious, but we will always get that sort of thing. Therefore, I want to stress to the Prime Minister the need for seeing that that side of our endeavour to keep up the morale of the people is looked to very carefully. There are two sides — one, giving the people plenty of information; the other, giving them plenty of occupation.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: First I would like to say how grateful we are to the Prime Minister for his weekly statement this afternoon. It covered a wide area of ground, beginning with a brief reference to the last meeting of the Supreme War Council. All that he told us was of great interest and was calculated to inspire Parliament and the people to fresh effort. Then we had a speech from the First Lord of the Admiralty which was a welcome innovation. It was a speech of rare power, a fighting speech from a fighting Minister, which is a strong and appropriate tonic for Parliament and the people of this country in war-time. It was good to-know that the convoy system is now in full operation, that the merchant ships are rapidly being armed and that substantial progress has been made in controlling the submarine menace to our trade.
We have, indeed, sustained losses, such as the one which we discussed last week, the lamentable loss of the aircraft carrier "Courageous" and a number of the brave officers and men who sailed in her. When the First Lord of the Admiralty was interrupted and was asked why there were only two destroyers available at that moment, he reminded us that we had not all the destroyers and small craft that we should like to have. At any rate, none can reproach him for that. Many


of us have urged on the Government greater provision of destroyers and small craft for many months and years past, and he himself has been in the forefront of that campaign. We can derive comfort from the assurance which he gave us that by the end of October there will be available for hunting down submarines three times the number of such craft as there were at the beginning of the war.
I think that by the general consensus of opinion in the whole House it was a great success, this innovation of the First Lord of the Admiralty giving us a speech here. I hope it will be carried further and that next week we may have a similar report, perhaps from the Secretary of State for Air. I am sure that we should like to have a fuller account of what the Royal Air Force is doing. The week before last I raised the question of the Kiel Canal raid and I said that we ought to have more information about that raid. I suggested that journalists ought to have an opportunity of meeting the officers and men who took part in the raid and of giving us their stories. I am glad that the Government acted on that suggestion. Two days later we got the stories that were given by certain officers and men to journalists. They told their stories; that was a good thing. There is a further point I would raise in this connection, and I say it not for their sakes — I am not at all sure that they will thank me for saying it — but for the sake of the public whom I represent here. The public would like to know that those men will get rewards for the gallantry that they showed on that occasion and get them soon. Rewards, like other things, are better if they are given quickly and hot after the event. The public would like to know that proper recognition is being given to men who showed such conspicuous gallantry in the service of their country. I want to make it a constant theme of my observations in this House that we must associate the people with the conduct of the war. I have always made that point in the House and I want to continue doing so. It is vital to have the people associated with the war and sharing in it.
We have all read with pleasure and admiration that the French Air Force have carried out a similar gallant exploit against the aircraft factories and zeppelin sheds at Friedrichshaven. We know also

that our own Air Force is undertaking reconnaissance work in France. The First Lord of the Admiralty has told us that it is helping in the anti-submarine campaign and we know that it has dropped a very large number of leaflets over Germany from time to time. The House would like to hear from the Secretary of State for Air whether this leaflet campaign is really yielding results.
I must say that I did not very much care about the last leaflet which was dropped on the night of 24th September, a translation of which I read in the "Times" to-day. I wonder what effect it will have on the Germans. 1 cannot help thinking that the statement that
Your Government's hope of successful Blitzkrieg has been destroyed by the British War Cabinet's decision to prepare for a three-year war,
the flamboyant reference to the French Army crossing the frontier of Germany and British troops "standing shoulder to shoulder with their French allies "— that is the first news I have had that they are fighting — are not likely to serve their purpose. Then there is the passage:
 The British and French fleets have swept German merchant shipping from the oceans. … You can no longer rely, as you did in the last war, on neutral supplies because your Government cannot pay for them.
If I found a leaflet that had been dropped here, saying, "We have steam-rolled the Poles …. — we have secured the alliance with Russia which you were trying to gain — our submarines are sinking your ships — the position for you is hopeless" it would not make me feel that we had to give up the war; it would make me feel that we should have to fight all the harder. I have a higher opinion of the spirit and intelligence of the German people than the writer of this leaflet appears to have. It ends up:
 Night after night the British Air Force has demonstrated its power by flights far into German territory. Germans note.
Goering has given them the answer to that in powerful, robust language that they like and understand — "let them come and drop their leaflets as much as they like; but let them drop one bomb, and we know how to answer them." Have these leaflets made the slightest impression, even when they have dropped through the clouds without turning into pulp — as I understand many do? I hope that the Secretary of State will be able


next week to let us know whether this leaflet warfare is yielding results. If it is, I am all for it. I have no wish to dictate to His Majesty's Government — I am sure Parliament is not the right body to dictate to His Majesty's Government — as to what is the best use to be made of the Royal Air Force. But as they are doing so much of this leaflet dropping, I think we are entitled to more information about that kind of war.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to the much-abused Ministry of Information. I do not know where it gets some of its information It startled me the other day by telling us that:
The whole manhood and womanhood of the country is now organised to the full for the prosecution of the war.
That is contrary to the knowledge of all of us. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the number of people who are begging to be allowed to serve the country in any capacity, who are begging even to get into the armed Forces of the Crown, and cannot.

Sir Arnold Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give chapter and verse for that astonishing statement??

Sir A. Sinclair: I hear everywhere people complaining —

Sir A. Wilson: I mean the astonishing statement attributed to the Ministry of Information.

Sir A. Sinclair: It is a quotation from a communiqué put out by the Ministry. I can get it for the hon. Member. If I can satisfy him on that, he will agree with me that the statement is contrary to the facts. Never a day passes without our receiving letters from people who want to serve and cannot get the opportunity. There is a sense of frustration growing up among the people. This delay in making the best use of the man-power and woman-power of the country may have bad results. I do not yield to the Leader of the Opposition in my confidence in victory, and if the war goes on for three years, or even for one, victory is almost a mathematical certainty. But Hitler does not mean to allow the war to go on for three years. He means to end it in six months. The next six months are going to be a critical period, and we need vigorous organisation of our man-power and industrial resources to withstand the

perils to which we shall be exposed during that time. In the last war, we recruited 500,000 men in five weeks. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, when I reminded him of that a week ago, said that that was a haphazard method, and that now we are working by a regular and scientific method. But is this new system of regular and scientific enlistment yielding as good results as were yielded by the voluntary system in 1914? I have here a cutting from the "News Chronicle" of 15th September, giving numbers of men called up. It says:
To-day's big call-up involves 16,900 of the ' twenty class,' 8,000 of whom were put back when the first batch of militiamen was posted to units on 15th July.
We did not have 35,000 men being trained in July, we had 8,000 fewer. There were 8,000 put back. Then only 8,900 of those called up in September were fresh recruits. The article goes on:
 After to-day the next big Army class call-up will begin on 13th October, and a total of 18,000 ' twenties ' will report for training on that day and the three following days. These men will join Air Defence units — antiaircraft and searchlight crews.
Surely older men could be trained to do anti-aircraft and searchlight crew work, and these younger men could be trained as marching soldiers.
I have dealt only with matters which are common knowledge, and the sources which I have cited are the public Press; but far more frank and searching discussion of these issues ought to be made possible. That is why last week, not for the first time, I suggested that we must contemplate for the future — not necessarily as a thing to be done this week or next week — a secret Session, in which we can discuss these things more frankly. When I made that suggestion last week it was argued that Ministers would, of course, not be able to tell us all their plans, that they would not be able to discuss strategy freely. We all understand that perfectly well, although I think they would be able to employ a great deal more freedom of language. But the important advantage would be that we should be able to tell Ministers all we know with much greater frankness. There has been great support for this proposal, and it would be useful to have a secret Session fairly soon. At a time of crisis the demand will be irresistible, but then it might be regarded abroad as a panic measure. It would be well that an


occasional secret Session should begin to occupy a recognised place in our arrangements.

Mr. Tinker: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by secret Session?

Sir A. Sinclair: It was in fact done during the last war. It is not secret in the sense that Ministers would be able to tell us all their secrets. We are not going to be a sort of enlarged Cabinet meeting. Nothing of that kind would be possible, but with the whole House present it would be possible for the hon. Member and myself to say frankly all we knew about deficiencies in our preparations, and we could make suggestions for the more vigorous prosecution of the war in various Departments
I believe that the resolution of Parliament and of the British people is unchanged. We have watched with deep admiration what the Prime Minister called the magnificent heroism of the defence of Warsaw. One gallant Ally — the Polish people — has gone down before the weight of the German invasion, and the main burden of the war now rests upon the French. I believe that the people in this country will not forgive His Majesty's Government if there is any unavoidable delay in the assumption by this country of its full and honourable share of that burden..

5.12 p.m.

Sir A. Wilson: We are all glad to have heard the vigorous voice of the Leader of the Opposition again. I entirely agree with everything he said relating to the B.B.C. I do not know what Department of State controls B.B.C. output, which last week included a debate on "what happens to us when we are dead." The B.B.C. wants a thorough clearing out of a very considerable proportion of its present personnel and the substitution for them of men attuned as few of them are to the needs of war, with new ideas and a fresh outlook. I receive complaints from dozens of my constituents of the unworthy stuff they are getting on the B.B.C. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information to inquire whether the American commentators who are put on the air by the B.B.C. should not have their stuff censored as carefully as that which is put out by authority. I am told that an

American commentator told the world that so strong is class prejudice in England that the lower orders are given a different type of dugout from that provided by the Government for the upper classes. That sort of tripe may well be treated by us with contempt but it is not always so regarded elsewhere.
The very uninspiring broadcast by the Lord Privy Seal last Friday prompts me to suggest that the appeal to employers not to dismiss employés would have been more effective if he had been able to explain why the Treasury through the various Ministries has given the most stringent instructions to every county council and local authority to put a complete stop to all public expenditure on housing, roads and surveys any portion of which is paid by the Treasury. That seems to me to be an insane and futile policy to adopt. The Ministry of Health have stopped expenditure on housing where roads have been already built and the electric light and gas mains already laid. A slum which has already been seven years under reprieve is again reprieved, and we are told that not a single penny more is to be spent. Then the Lord Privy Seal complains of employers dismissing their men! How can they do otherwise? In my own county the Ministry of Transport has ordered surveys for new roads to be discontinued completely and the staff dispersed. There must be a time lag. They cannot for some months to come be brought into the system of military. or other employment and naturally the number of persons who are employed is swelling and will continue to swell. The Ministry of Transport is as much responsible as the Ministry of Health. When these persons concerned come in direct contact with the innumerable officials who are at these Government offices they find they are not dealing with the same officials as a month ago. There has been a complete shift round of officials in the various Ministries and no one knows who is who and what is what. We have no reason to be proud of Whitehall at the moment, as far as concerns employment and finance.
On the other side there is going on today, as everybody knows, an amount of squandering of money which will have the worst effect on the morale of this country unless something is done to put a stop to it. I can go to villages 50 miles


from a city to find railway companies still busy sandbagging one corner. There are remote seaside resorts and country villages with children toddling about with gas masks from schoolroom to playground and back. One town of 12,000 inhabitants is spending £ 5,000 a year on air-raid precautions, another £ 12,000 a year. There is a vast expenditure under no sort of control. When I protested to a responsible official he said, "It does not matter; it is Home Office money." That sort of folly is going on in every corner of England to-day when men and material are needed for more vital services. Vast sums are being squandered. I see no signs whatever of any control by Whitehall or any revision of A.R.P. to which the Prime Minister alluded a fortnight ago. Scores of thousands of retailers are being liquidated to the profound satisfaction of planners. I quote from a fortnightly paper, "Pep":
 Only in war or threat of war would the British Government embark on large scale planning.
They have got their war, and their planning. There is already a movement, with plenty of political support, to ensure those who are deprived of their livelihood without any compensation shall not be restored to it when the emergency ceases. Some of us are wondering whether we have not lost in productive energy more than we have gained by these changes, none of which has yet been explained or justified in Parliament and still less debated. Speculation, at least in the City of London, has not ceased and one only has to look at the recent movements in the price of shellac, which is necessary for certain types of munitions and is a favourite counter among traders for a particular and very easily recognisable and notorious type. There are counters still left on the market where money can be made. Some prices have gone up because the Government is in the market and others are going up because the Government are not yet in the market.
I beg all the Ministers concerned with the civil side of our life to keep in the closest touch with those of the business community who can take a detached view. In a good many of these Ministries the old 1914 lot are back again; and the professional interests and livelihood of one group of men are being sacrificed for the benefit of another set of men. The

process is taking shape in the leather, hide and wool industries, where one lot of men have taken over and are busily engaged in ousting from their livelihood a lot of other people. Our export trade will not benefit by the partisan outlook of some of these controllers.
The Government — I am bound to speak frankly — make a great mistake if they think that those in the professional and commercial world, whose taxable capacity has been enormously reduced during the past three weeks, a very large number of whose members have been ruined, will agree with the words of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) — I quote from the "Times" of 15th October, 1938— that changes in our social and economic structure as far-reaching as those which have taken place in some other countries may be necessary as a by-product of a war to liberate Europe from the very systems to which he alluded, namely, those of Germany, Russia and Italy. We do not want totalitarian methods shackled upon us for good as a by-product of a war against these totalitarian systems, for the benefit of a few monopolistic groups of distributors who are already firmly installed in some of these controls and have every intention of maintaining the initial advantage with which they have started out. I am referring particularly to the Ministry of Food.
The face of England is already strewn with financial wreckage of decent folk and old firms. I beg the Government to walk warily if they wish to maintain that national unity which, as has been said by the Prime Minister, has had no parallel in the history of the country. I am far more anxious about the home front than I am about the fighting services. With regard to our inability, referred to by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), to accept the offers of service so freely made from every class of the community, I do not think that we can accept them or a tithe of them for months to come. These things must progress slowly, and the best service is to remind them of the central register already opened for those who have offered and are waiting to render service. As Milton said:
 They also serve who only stand and wait.


When the gilded niches with concealed lighting are all occupied and other jam-roles are taken up, there will still be a vast field of service open for a long time to come for those men and women who have been content to wait humbly and patiently until they have been called upon.
Public confidence would be greatly restored if we could have a broadcast of the speech which we have just heard from the First Lord of the Admiralty. With all his gifts the right hon. Gentleman could never have done it half so well from a solitary studio in the B.B.C. Let us make the precedent and have broadcasts from this House of the Prime Minister and carefully selected speakers. It would have a profound effect and would be far better propaganda than that we hear from other sources. It would certainly contrast painfully with the feeble comments of the gentlemanly commentator who repeats to us what he receives from the Ministry of Information, who in turn repeat what they have received from the fighting Departments, who in turn repeat what they have received from their military and naval advisers. We want something far more vigorous in the way of propaganda and broadcasting than we have yet had. I look to the Ministry of Information to select from its 800 add personnel a few whose voices will carry as effectively as that of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty.

5.25 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: We must all agree with the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) in his comment on the speech we have just heard from the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I think it would be a disaster if Debates in this House were to be broadcast. Much of our work is done in Committee. If Debates were broadcast we should, I am afraid, have inflicted upon us a great many speeches which would be far better not heard, and it would be difficult to distinguish between one and the other.
There is one point I wish to raise and it is an unpopular one. Therefore, it is the more necessary to raise it at this time. We are not doing our duty unless those who come from certain parts of the country known as reception areas point out that the present situation cannot possibly be allowed to continue. It is

destroying that very spirit of the people which we must sustain if we are to carry the war to a successful conclusion. I would implore my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that if he is contemplating any further schemes of evacuation he will take into account the local authorities of the areas from which the people come and the local authorities of the areas to which the people go, and to get really good advice which will prevent a repetition of the deplorable mistakes from which we are now suffering. In my area we have lost over 50 per cent, of the mothers and children who came there and who have gone back to London. In many cases that I have tried to investigate I could see very little reason for that. Where there are children alone and where the type of teacher in charge is out to help and not to hinder, the scheme has been universally successful. I hope that some consideration may be given by the Board of Education to the possibility of trying to model the scheme on the lines of what used to be called children's country holidays, where the children came from the towns and became part and parcel of the village life. At the present time the teachers in charge keep the children separate, with the result that they are not being assimilated and are living a sort of alien existence in the middle of the rural community. Naturally, they are inclined to be unhappy in these circumstances no matter how one tries to help them.
It is essential that you should calm the feelings of the foster mothers who are looking after the children, and the foster mothers who have to deal with the real mothers who are in the household, particularly where there are rows as to who should have the use of the cooking stove. These troubles are causing such a disruption of family life as has never been known before. They are accentuated by the black-out, and they have been made worse by the sort of broadcasts to which the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members have referred. It is essential before the darker days come upon us to see whether something cannot be done to appreciate the gloom into which a great many people have been plunged, in many cases by thoughtless evacuation schemes. I say thoughtless, because at the present time not one single clerk of any local authority, to my knowledge, has been asked to report to the Ministry.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I cannot allow that statement to go uncontradicted. We are in continual contact with clerks of local authorities and we have received many reports from them. I should not like it to go out from this House that we do not welcome every opportunity to get in touch with the local authorities.

Sir R. Glyn: I am glad to hear that, but all I can say is that not one single clerk inmy constituency has been asked to render a report.

Mr. Elliot: I do not think we should send out demands at this time, which might be resented by local authorities, that they should send in reports to me when the clerks of local authorities are on their own initiative sending in continually reports of the greatest value. If the clerks of any local authority in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency send in any reports 1 shall be only too glad to receive them.

Sir R. Glyn: I am glad to hear that. There is a feeling that what has been occurring has only resulted in getting no information from Whitehall, and there is a feeling that if there was a sudden change in the situation resulting in an unorganised evacuation a situation would be created which would be very hard to deal with. It would give additional confidence in the reception areas if they could have an assurance that there is collaboration between the local authorities of the areas from which children come and the areas to which they go. There it; one other matter to which I must refer and my right hon. Friend knows a great deal about it. In London and most big cities you have good schools and good medical services, but it has been a shock to people in the country districts to learn the conditions under which, apparently, some people live in our great cities. It has been a complete revelation. Somehow or other we must get some good out of the searchlight which has been thrown upon these conditions and discover how it is that children with these skin diseases seem to treat it as a normal condition.
I agree that there are still slums where these dreadful illnesses are bred, but that does not account for the habits of some of these people. I have had many requests to know what can be done to put the houses into which they have gone into

a habitable condition. Who is to blame? How is it that people in this year know no better than to treat a house as if it was a kennel? It has set going a feeling between the country and the town which is unfortunate, and it is absolutely essential that on any future occasion there should be an adequate examination of the children by medical officers before they go and when they arrive, and if there is the slightest indication of illness they should be properly looked after until they are fit to go into cottage homes. These are unpleasant things to say, but it is necessary to say them sometimes.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Member suggest that this indicates the condition of more than a small percentage of the people?

Sir R. Glyn: I do not know what the proportion is, and it may be that certain districts and parishes in slum areas have gone to certain villages and they may have got an over-sense of the situation. At the same time the fact remains, and we must take measures to put it right. It is no use ignoring these facts. During the winter there is nothing more important than keeping up the morale of the people and making them feel more inclined to face the difficulties which are in front of us. Very little seems to have been done to get over the immediate difficulties in regard to evacuation, and unless something is done quickly to put the situation right I tell the Government that they are facing a position which I do not think they appreciate, in a great many parts of the country, and one which is causing considerable anxiety to those who sit for rural areas. Nobody knows more than the present Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education about these matters.
Let me give the House three examples. The other day a teacher refused to allow 14 children to remain in a certain house because they had a mile to walk to school. The children were well looked after, but the teacher said, "I do not want to have them around me all day and all night." That is not a sufficient excuse. In cases where you have a complete school you do not want a helper. I know a case where a school teacher brought his wife as helper. She got a guinea and subsistence allowance, and the people in the village are bitterly resenting what they consider a vile form


of profiteering at a time like this. I am with hon. Members opposite all the time when they talk about profiteering, and there is no excuse for using the evacuation scheme to draw money in this way for helpers who are totally unable to do anything from a medical point of view. If you ask a teacher where his business ends and that of the helper begins, there is no answer. There is great confusion and the matter wants thorough investigation. Many of these helpers are slipping back with the mothers. These are scandals which loom larger in the country districts than they do in this House.
In another case three stable boys asked their employer to give them the sack. They were getting 48s. 6d. a week, and as racing is over their employer did not want them. But he said, "Why do you want me to sack you," and they said, "We can get work in a Government factory starting at £ 3 10s. a week, and rising to £ 6." What is my answer to the agricultural labourer, a most highly skilled man, who deserves every penny he gets, when stable boys, totally inexperienced in factory work, ask their "employer to sack them because they can go into a Government factory and get twice as much money as a skilled agricultural labourer? [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because I think in war you should pay according to the efficiency of the person and the needs of the country. In the last war those persons who were overseas bitterly resented that the men who bore the burden and heat of the day were paid so much less than others who stayed at home, necessary as was their work. I still think that organised labour will see that there is no such ridiculous gap as that. There is no excuse for paying unskilled men a rate of wage which is higher than that paid to a skilled man. There must be greater uniformity; it is one of the greatest problems which confronts us.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to take it from the hon. Member that £ 3 10s. is too high a rate of wage to pay an unskilled labourer?

Sir R. Glyns: I never said anything of the kind. I have said that these boys earning 48s. 6d. per week wanted to go into Government employment because they were able to start at a salary which was higher than that. The opinion of

the trade unions has always been that there should be some attempt made to pay an adequate wage to skilled workers, and that it is not the Government's duty to pay exorbitant wages to unskilled men.

5.40 p.m.

Miss Ward: There is one matter which I want to raise briefly. I want to ask whether the heads of the Service Departments can promote some other machinery in order that separation allowances for the wives of serving men may be paid without delay. I cannot base my case on the Navy, because I have had no complaints from any wife of a man serving in the Navy, but as far as the Army and the Air Force are concerned, there is considerable anxiety throughout the North-East coast — I have tried to check up the facts as best I could — that allowances have been unduly delayed and that men have even left for somewhere in France without their wives receiving separation allowances. I know that machinery is provided whereby wives can go either to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association for temporary help or to the Unemployment Assistance Board, but I resent it very much that the wife of anyone serving in the Forces should be sent from pillar to post to draw allowances which are theirs by right and which, I am certain, the country would wish to see paid immediately the men are called up.
In big areas, such as Newcastle and other large towns, there is, in fact, a Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and an Unemployment Assistance Board, but in the more widely scattered areas, such as some of the mining villages in my division and small urban districts, there is no Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and no Unemployment Assistance Board. Indeed, in some parts of my area, when men are required to go and see the unemployment assistance officer in connection with matters arising out of the Board, postcards are sent to the men and their fares to and from the unemployment assistance officer are paid. When wives are waiting for their allowances to come and are wondering whether they will be able to get sufficient money to keep the house going over the weekend, how can they suddenly find the bus fare or the train fare to go to the unemployment assistance officer to see whether he can give them temporary help? In


any case, there ought to be no need for that. In the twentieth century, we ought to be able so to organise our Services that as soon as a man is called up an adequate and proper allowance is available to his wife.
I ask the Service Departments to consider a suggestion which I will put forward. When a man's enlistment paper is served on him and he is called up, would it not be possible then to send, in addition to the calling up paper, a form on which he would enter the names of his wife and children? That form could be presented at the Post Office by the wife and a temporary allowance, either for one month or two months, on the information contained in the form, could then be paid. It is obvious that there must be a certain checking up of the details of the information given on the form, but I can see no practical objection to the temporary payment of these allowances through a Post Office, and if any wrong statement were entered on the form, the matter could be dealt with subsequently, and so the wife would not be kept waiting until the details had been checked up by very busy regimental paymasters.
I want in passing to make this remark. I wish those who are responsible for the administration in Government offices would impress upon the paymasters connected with the various Services that when they get letters from the wives of serving men, those letters must be answered. I cannot think of anything worse than that women, in a state of agitation after their husbands have been called up to serve in the Forces, should have to write these letters, and then receive no answers. No doubt the women may be 'in error, because they may not have sup-plied the proper birth certificates or marriage certificates, but after all, although these arc very easy matters to Whitehall, they are not easy matters to women in small villages. I have had many instances where letters have remained unanswered and the poor bewildered woman has come to me and asked why she cannot get an answer and why she cannot get her allowance. I do not suggest that this is a very widespread complaint, but I raise it because I believe some better organisation could be devised. I wrote immediately to the Secretary of State for Air and I received a reply this morning, in which he said that he would have my complaint looked

into immediately, and the Financial Secretary to the War Office, to whom I wrote also, has spoken to me on the matter. I raise the matter now because I believe that it can be remedied.
When this war is over, when the victory is won, and the peace concluded, the people of this country will have to set to work to build up their lives afresh. How that is to be done will depend upon the quality, the determination and the courage of the people who are left to do the rebuilding. How those qualities will develop will depend upon the leadership given by the people who have the responsibility of leadership, however small may be their position of leadership. I raise this matter to-night because I know that behind me I have every man and woman in the country. They feel that the organisation should be such that the wives of men serving in the Forces should not have to seek round the countryside to get allowances to carry on their homes while their men "are away. I hope that attention will be paid to the matter and that when I put down a Parliamentary question in a month's time, I shall hear that the difficulties have been overcome.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I want to say, in the first place, that this evening, and to morrow morning, the people of this country will be in a far better spirit than they have been in since the war began. That will be the result of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. That is what we have been waiting for during the last fortnight. I notice that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) is laughing, but the wives in the homes, who have been listening to the B.B.C. broadcasts, the small boys and girls who have been listening to them — I have a little grand son who gets up every morning before eight o'clock to get to the wireless—

Mr. T. Williams: The speech may be censored.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) says that the speech may be censored. I hope that not one word of it is censored. I should like the full speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty to be given on the wireless to-night, so that we may know where we are. I will tell the House that this grandson of mine, who is up to listen


to the news at eight o'clock, and who listens at twelve o'clock and six o'clock, said to me, "Granddad, when are we going to begin? "That is the spirit. I am bringing it to you from. Yorkshire. I was delighted with the speech that was made by the right hon. Gentleman, for it will give inspiration all over the British Isles and in the Empire.
Having said that, I want to say a few words about the home front. There is not on the home front now the unity that there was a fortnight ago. There is a tremendous amount of grousing, and I think that grousing is due to the fact that we have not got the spirit of the volunteer now as we had it before the war begun. In a division such as mine, everybody knows everybody else; and everybody in the town knows what the other chap is earning. I will give an instance relating to air-raid precautions. I want the Minister of Health to listen to me. I am anxious that the spirit of unity on the home front should be maintained, but it will be found that you can upset that spirit much quicker than you can bring it back again. As I say, every man knows what the other man is earning and there are cases like that of an engine-driver who is earning £ 4 or £ 5 a week and whose wife has been put on to a job at £ 2 a week, while other people who have only 10s. a week, have not a chance of a job. Somebody here or somewhere else, ought to take hold of things like that, and see that such cases do not occur again.
It is not only from that standpoint that I wish to draw attention to this matter. We have cases of publicans and of painters and all kinds of tradesmen doing this work, and in my own town there are 150 miners whohave been out of work since last April. These men are drawing 30s. or 35s. a week from the Employment Exchange while other men are getting these posts. We are paying 30s. a week to chaps who could be put to one of these £ 3 a week jobs. I feel it my duty to state these facts across the Floor of the House. As I say, we want to maintain unity but we can only maintain unity if these glaring anomalies are dealt with as soon as possible. Again, I wish to thank the First Lord of the Admiralty for his speech which was an inspiration to us and an encouragement to go on. We

can win, but we want more speeches like that in the House, telling us the truth, telling us where we stand and encouraging our people.

5.54 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: The House, I am sure, has appreciated and approved of the speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), who has said in forcible language certain things which have badly needed saying for some time past. There is no Member who does not know, either of his own knowledge, or from statements made to him by others, of instances of people who have offered voluntary service and who have been told that they must be paid for their services. There is only a limited amount of money available for this country to finance the war, and if that money is to be wasted in paying people for doing work which they are prepared from patriotic motives to do for nothing, there will not be enough to go round.
I, too, wish to pay my tribute to the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I am all the more glad to do so as a member of the Service over which the right hon. Gentleman now presides. I listened to his statement with particular and peculiar interest, and there are one or two points on which I would like to ask him questions. He gave us the tonnage of sinkings and also the tonnage of our merchant ships on the high seas. Could he also tell us what is the tonnage of our merchant ships on the high seas at the present time, as compared with the tonnage of our merchant ships upon the high seas when the sinkings in 1917 were at their worst? That is a very important figure, because, if taken in conjunction with the other figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given-us, it will present the country with a full picture of the present situation as compared with that of 1917.
The right hon. Gentleman largely confined his remarks to the question of submarine attacks. I do not know whether, in the public interest, it would be possible for him to say whether, up to date, there have been any instances of attacks on convoys by surface vessels or from the air. One of the greatet menaces from which the convoys had to suffer in the last war was not so much attack by submarines as attack by overwhelming forces


of surface craft. The country will have listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the Prime Minister recently in which he stated that the number of submarines sunk had been about six or seven. This afternoon we heard from the First Lord of the relation which that figure bore to the probable total tonnage of German submarine craft in existence when the war began. I think it should be made clear whether or not that figure includes any sinkings of submarines effected by the French maritime forces. If it does not, then I think the position may be even better.
One point which I would emphasise is that it is of the utmost importance that we should not be too accurate and definite in stating the total number of submarines sunk. The effect upon the moral of a submarine officer who does not know how his confreres in the service are going is very important. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the majority of the sinkings in 1917 were carried out by a comparatively small number of extraordinarily expert German commanders, but the uncertainty as to what was happening to German submarines preyed on the minds of the other commanders to such an extent that they were not really very efficient when they got to sea. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned a fact which I think will be welcome, namely, that the total amount of goods seized by our forces from German ships, or contraband which had been seized, was greater than the amount of goods which we had lost. The figure which I should like to have is a figure showing how the tonnage of ships which have been sunk by enemy action .compares with the tonnage of ships which our naval forces have taken from the Germans.
I am glad that both the First Lord and the Leader of the Opposition paid a tribute to the fishing fleet and the Mercantile Marine. As a sailor, I am also glad that they paid a tribute to the work of the hunting flotillas of the Royal Navy. It is perhaps unfortunate that a large and valuable ship like the "Courageous" should have been escorted by only four destroyers when carrying out what must have been an arduous and risky duty, and that two of those destroyers should have been detached to help a merchant ship in distress was also perhaps unfortunate at the time. I cannot help thinking that with a ship of that size employed

upon that work it is rather risky to have fewer than six destroyers in attendance. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of that fact in that there are not sufficient destroyers at the present time for all naval purposes.
I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and also by the hon. Member for Hemsworth. It seems to me that we are making a great mistake in stifling the ordinary trading life of the community. We run some risk, it appears to me, of suffering from an even greater dictatorship than that which obtains in the totalitarian countries, namely, a dictatorship of the bureaucracy. It should be possible for the community to carry on its business with the least possible interference, but anybody who sees London as it is at present, must realise that it is like the annual general meeting of the "Spread a Gloom Club" with everybody going round with long faces, amusements almost completely shut down, and relaxation of all sorts denied to the people. That is having a bad effect on the moral of the country. If some people had their way, we should have still further encroachments upon our liberty. There are those who would limit the public house and its hours and who would try, as was done in the last war, under the guise of national expediency, to bring about enforced teetotalism for the ordinary citizen. I believe that the Government should grant to the well dis-positioned citizen in this country the greatest possible measure of liberty consistent with the national effort being coordinated and properly directed.
Our motto should be, as far as possible, "Business as usual." I cannot help thinking that the letters which we all get from our constituents, bringing forward cases where the reduction in the petrol ration is pressing hardly upon their businesses is something of which the Government should take notice. I had a letter recently from a constituent of mine who is a commercial traveller. He has, in the course of his business, to cover a certain mileage, and the amount of petrol which he is allowed, plus the extra amount granted when he appealed to the petroleum overseer, is absolutely insufficient for him to carry out his duties. If he cannot go


about his duties, obviously the businesses which he serves are made the more difficult of carrying out, and if business in this country is to come to a standstill, it seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find it even more difficult than he does at present to finance the country and its effort.
I would appeal to the Government to try and do something to restore to the people of this country means of relaxation. We won the last war because we were able to keep our sense of humour and our sense of proportion. We made every effort to interest and amuse our people while the war was on, and I believe that the reason why the German moral cracked during the war was because they had not the sense of amusement and enjoyment with which the people of this country are blessed. Therefore, it seems to me that we shall fight none the worse, nor will our efforts be any the less, if we manage to keep the greatest possible liberty of individual action in trade and if we make it possible for the people to be amused. I would open the theatres and the cinemas. After all is said and done, all war is a risk, but I believe that, on balance, it is better that the normal life of the people should continue so far as possible than that we should adopt the sort of super funk-hole policy which has obtained here during the last two years. Everyone has said that we must wait for the appalling air attack which will come. It may come, but it will be met, if it does come, by the forces of the Crown — in the first place, by antiaircraft defences and by the Royal Air Force, and only as a last resort by the necessity of putting the citizens underground. Until that time comes, it is better for the morale of the country and for the happiness of the people that we should allow them to go about their daily avocations as freely as possible, and that we should make it possible for them, when their day's work is done, to have reasonable relaxation and amusement in order that their spirits may be kept up.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: I am sorry the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) has gone, because I wanted to tell him that I never expected to hear such a severe stricture upon Totalitarianism as fell from his lips this evening. Three

weeks of war have indeed worked wonders of enlightenment. I want also to make this plea, and to support the request made by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), when he argued in favour of a secret Session. I merely wish to reiterate his main point, that it is not so much for what Ministers may tell us that we want to have a secret Session, as for what Members could say to Ministers while a secret Session was in progress.
I want to detain the House for only a very few moments, but I would like to say, first of all, how I welcome the sustained tone of resolution which was audible in the Prime Minister's statement to-day and, indeed, in all the other statements that he has made weekly since the war began. If I may say so without presumption, that resolution is worthy of the great people whom my right hon. Friend is serving as Prime Minister. It was, if I may again say so with modesty, brilliantly supplemented by the inspiring and well-informed optimism of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
In a play which I saw on at least three occasions during the peace that has left us for a time, "1066 And All That," there is a character whose name is Colonel Bygadsby. When at a loss he informed a subaltern repeatedly, "The men are splendid." So are the children and so are the women in this country to-day. I think I may add without exaggeration that all our fellow citizens are inspired by a spirit of calm determination, even in the absence of the normal amusements, which means eventual disaster for the enemy. I am sure that every hon. Member admires the old lady who made this comment on the balloon barrage over London, "Those Germans make a great mistake if they think they can intimidate us by sitting up there in those balloons."
If to-day there is a pro-German in this House — and before the war there were several here and a good many in another place — let those pro-Germans oppose the Prime Minister. It would be a far more honest thing than to pretend extreme bellicosity after months and years of flattering Hitler and adulating Nazidom. This brings me to this point, that I want to indicate what I conceive to be the main danger to our cause. Our aim must be nothing short of absolute victory over Nazi Germany and the absolute destruction of the Nazi regime. That cause, I


dare to say, need not fear the enemy. He is formidable, ruthless, and more than half mad. If anybody doubts that, let him read the Blue Book which was published a few days ago. Our enemy embodies bad faith, brutality, insatiable ambition. Whatever the shocks we suffer and the losses we have to endure, the war can only be allowed to end in his defeat and in our victory.
But I venture to say that our cause has most to fear from the enemy at home. For months, until the outbreak of war, the activities of such bodies as the Link, the Anglo-German Fellowship and the British Union of Fascists have caused the Germans to conclude that we would never resist them till it was too late to destroy Nazi domination and to prevent the dissolution of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Those individuals within our own country are in fact the men who have betrayed our cause. Of course, they would now tell us, no doubt, that they were "working for peace" when this treachery, expressed as it was in such ludicrous slogans as "No fighting over Danzig," "Not a drop of British blood for Czecho-Slovakia," has in fact produced the war. Is it conceivable that these dupes of Nazi propaganda could have changed their character over the night of 2nd September? It is from these sources that we may expect pleas for peace before the real work of victory is done.
Again, I would like, if it were possible, although I admit that it is somewhat unprecedented, for His Majesty's Government to state in the most explicit terms that their policy is in no way to be taken as expressed in the columns of the "Times." Even in the last week before the war actually came upon us, the somewhat unsuccessful policy of appeasement vas audible in that most dangerously respectable of pamphlets. Since hostilities actually began this organ, which is so often treated abroad — and I am thinking particularly of neutral countries — as the official voice of the Government, has seemed from time to time to be on the verge of madness, to be, to quote Sir Nevile Henderson, "aping Herr Hitler at his worst." Here are two sentences printed yesterday from their special correspondent on the Lithuanian border:
 Messages from Warsaw in the last few days show that the spirit of the townspeople, though depressed by the destruction

and carnage around them, are as undaunted as those of the military defenders.
That is not my English. He goes on:
 Apparently the full extent of Poland's calamity is not yet realised by the rank and file of soldiers and civilians inside the beleaguered city, and the hope appears to be strong there that the defence of Warsaw may turn the fortunes of war in favour of Poland.
That is a fine sentence, with its defeatist implications, for the German propagandist, whom we hear every night after midnight, to seize and to wireless to the devoted defenders of our Ally's capital. It is as though the "Times" really cannot see the strategic value to ourselves of the valour of the Poles. Every day that the fall of Warsaw is delayed makes our preparations for a stroke on the West, or raids upon military objectives in the Reich, or our propaganda flights over Germany, so much easier and more effective. Not only should we salute the Poles for their courage, but we should thank them with a full heart for every hour they can give us to gather our strength for the blows of retribution.
Russia's invasion of Poland is morally inexcusable. Its methods are unheard of. But its motive even to-day — it is more than a week since it was begun — remains incalculable. When this news came through the "Times" seemed to go mad. They seemed bent on involving us in a war against Russia as well as against Germany. If Russia needed an excuse to feed German stomachs and fill the tanks of German aircraft, she could have found it in that leading article of the "Times." It did not seem to have occurred to this paper that Russia may indeed have been engaged in roping Germany off from the Ukraine and the Balkans. We shall not lose the war, but that will not be the fault of the "Times." I trust that His Majesty's Government will find some means of publicly dissociating themselves from this particularly shortsighted newspaper. We should never forget, even to-day when we arc united on our immediate purpose, that the plot of ceding the Sudetenland, the act which opened the door to Prague, was apparently hatched in Printing House Square.
I am glad that Lord Halifax has at last seen the Russian Ambassador. Contacts, however stormy, are better than no con-


tacts at all. I venture to think that we did not always do our best to get Russia. She may never have intended to cooperate, but I shall always believe that the prospects of an agreement with Russia would have been better if in the spring we had sent to Moscow Lord Halifax, or the present First Lord of the Admiralty, or the Dominions Secretary. I will be optimistic to this extent, and say that he would be a foolish man who said to-day that it was too late to repair some of the harm that was done by the earlier policy of qualified indifference. Of one thing we may be certain; it is that Russia's advance into Poland is not a move which will bring any satisfaction to our enemy.
Many of us have felt ashamed that we have been able to do very little to prevent the terrible sufferings through which Poland has passed in these early stages. Some of us hope that we may be allowed to serve in the forces to do what little we can to repair the wrongs suffered not only by Poland, but by Czecho-Slovakia as well. That I suggest, is the least we owe to Dr. Benes, who, more than any other single man, gave Europe an extra year's peace. While I am waiting to find some kind of useful service — and I expect hon. Members agree with me — I feel as futile as the man who, when asked why he did not go to help save civilisation, said, "lam part of the civilisation they are out to save." It would give some of us who hope to be allowed to go a greater sense of confidence if we knew that the Government included rather more men who had been consistently right in matters of foreign policy, and rather fewer of those who have so frequently been wrong.
The Government cannot emphasise too clearly our plea that we are not fighting for revenge on the ox-like, stupid, stereotyped and extremely unattractive German people. We are pledged to the final destruction of the evil menHitler, Ribbentrop, Goering, Goebbels and the rest who have deceived so disastrously many of our fellow countrymen by posturing as the protagonists against Bolshevism. May I suggest that we should be resolute for peace, but resolute for a victorious peace, a peace, indeed, which gives to the Rule of Law a chance of life.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I have been listening to the speech of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) with great interest because it will be great documentation for us in a political sense. He has not named some of the people to whom he is attaching blame, but we will name them when our time comes. That is not our job to-night, however. I have for the last three or four weeks been unable to attend the debates, because I have been busy trying to keep running the machine of supplies to the people of the country in order that we may maintain the morale which has been referred to in the Debate to-day
I want to ask the attention of the House and of the Chancellor of the Duchy to matters arising out of a private notice question which I put to him today and his answer with regard to the immediate necessity of organised rationing of important staple foodstuffs. The position with which we are faced in this matter is exceedingly disappointing to those leaders of the food trade who for about three years have been in contact with the department to which the Minister has gone, which is now called the Ministry of Food. They have said from time to time that it was functioning very well. It now appears that the scheme, certainly as regards the procedure to be followed in the early weeks of the war, was good on paper, but it has not been much good in operation.
Some days ago I approached the Minister privately regarding butter, because I would much rather get these things settled privately, if possible, than bring them into public debate. We have seen an extraordinary state of affairs in regard to butter in the last three weeks. Soon after the outbreak of war the Government Department concerned, now the Ministry of Food, requisitioned a very large parcel of the butter in store in the country. That requisitioned butter has been kept off the immediate market. In view of the statistical position when the butter was requisitioned, that meant inevitably that within a very short time we should have an actual shortage of butter available for distribution. In fact, during the week which we are facing from tonight, we shall see with every day that passes an increasing shortage of butter in the retail shops, and under the Government's present policy we shall


have every retailer in the invidious position of being the ration-controller of his customers. As a result of the Government's policy, with which I did not agree at the time, of asking people who could afford it to stock a week or two's supplies of food, the richer people, with refrigerators in their kitchens will be able to look forward with equanimity for two or three weeks to a shortage of butter, and will still be able to get whatever extra quantity they can from the shops. On the other hand there will be masses of people who will either get no butter at all this week or a very limited quantity, to be eked out with whatever margarine they can obtain.
That is not the whole story of butter. The first step taken was to reduce the number ol qualities and grades to two, with a maximum price of is. 7d. per 1b. for Scandinavian and other northern butters and home-produced butters, and is. 5d. for the other classes. Hon. Members will recall that in the week in which that step was taken there were large numbers of our traders selling at any rate the cheaper qualities of butter at Is. 1d. to 1s. 3d. per 1b., and it was a very steep rise to put on those maximum prices, unless there was very good reason for it. I said then, as I say now, that it is an entirely false policy to start dealing with a shortage by raising the price, as if that would meet the situation, and that we ought to have rationed it and fixed the price on what was the true price position in relation to the stocks held by the Government and known to be in the hands of traders in the country.
Every night, in the last half hour before going to sleep, I read some phase of food control experience in the years 1914–1918, and I must say that I do not regard it as right to start this business by trying to provide all the material for the biography of a civil servant telling how much profit was made by the Government Departments. A very large part of the butter requisitioned by the Government in the first few days of the war was taken over at from 115s. to 118s. per cwt. What was the first controlled price at which that butter, taken over at that price, was offered to the wholesaler? It was 144s. As I see it, the first thing the Minister of Food did was to requisition stocks and then put them on the market at a price which gave him a profit of about £ 250,000

— a gross profit I agree, from when the Ministry will no doubt have to meet some charges for rent and interest. Incidentally, some of the traders have to meet interest charges accruing before the butter was requisitioned. That is not the way to do the job.
In this week we are facing an increasing shortage of butter. Now there is only one grade and the maximum price is 1s. 7d. per 1b. I know full well that in the case of large multiple shop concerns, or co-operative societies in a large way, if there is a hang-over of a particular grade of butter in this or that area they could for this week continue to sell a few parcels at a lower price than is. 7d. But take the case of the small man who has not a pound of butter left in his shop. He has to pay 152s. — because the price of 145s. is ex-store — and he is going to have great difficulty in selling at much below is. 7d. There will be an immediate jockeying for position among private traders, with perhaps some under cutting, sometimes at the expense of the staff, as an advertisement for registration when food control comes. That is an abominable position. It is not a situation into which we ought to be forced.
I know that the Minister will say, as he said to me last week in a letter, and as he said this week in answer to a question in the House, that we shall have to wait for the census of the population, which is to be taken next Friday. In view of the task of handling the statistics derived from the census, I should imagine that it will be a few weeks before we get any rationing, and what the situation will be then in the case of butter and other commodities I hardly dare forecast, because I do not know and I am sure that the Minister does not. When I add to that that in the face of this butter shortage there are some people in official circles who are talking of its being a mistake to attempt to enter into competition with the Germans for higher priced Scandinavian butter, I feel inclined to say: "Why have we not some people in this business who know something about it? "
I turn to sugar. In the case of sugar, as I suggested in a supplementary question this afternoon, there is no shortage of main supplies. It is no good being destructive in criticism and withholding praise where praise is due, and I would say of the people who have arranged our


sugar purchases that they have done a good job. We can say at this time that there is really no dangerous shortage of sugar, there being quite a good stock in sight and available, and yet I dare say there is not a Member representing a reception area, where there has been an extra pressure upon the supplies, who could not say with me that many shopkeepers have not been able to supply some people with sugar at all and in other cases the best they have been able to do is to see that they got a half-pound per head per week. That is half the ordinary demand, and is less than the 12 oz. per head which we could give at once under a ration scheme. That is in spite of the fact, which is known in the trade and which the Minister himself acknowledged in his reply this afternoon, that in the last three weeks deliveries have been very nearly 50 per cent, above the average for the time of year. There is only one explanation of that, and it is that in the areas where there are not so many people as there are in the reception areas there has been deliberate hoarding all along the line, because there has been no rationing.
Now I come to meat. The position here can easily land the right hon. Gentleman into a situation as difficult to handle as in the case of the fish scheme. As I see it, similar dangers are arising, and the trade is being affected to such an extent that meat is rising in price. I do not say it is general, but in certain districts there is an actual wastage, and we get the extraordinary situation of efficient markets, with cold storage available, being left unused for the time being while you have to resort to your temporary war plans. Then you come to the real criticism of the general policy in this temporary period at the outset of the scheme. The Government have preached to the public that there is no need for prices to rise. We have meat holding price orders and the price is round about what it ought to have been on 25th August. The price, on the average, for imported and English home killed has risen 15 per cent, but every retailer is expected to sell it at the price of 25th August. That is an impossible situation. When you come down in a few weeks time to a discussion as to what is to be the real level of prices as between exporters, salesmen and the slaughter places, the first claim that you will be

met with in many cases is the loss incurred in this period owing to the Government's policy, and you will have some difficulty in tracing what the losses were. I could say similar things about other commodities, but I do not wish to take up time. We really are being faced with quite unnecessary chaos.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Where?

Mr. Alexander: If the right hon. Gentleman wants more examples, I can give them. What is the position with regard to peas,- beans, lentils and oats? We are not short of wholesale supplies. We can get delivery, but can we get a price out of the Department? No. So we cannot get delivery, in fact, into retail shops of commodities which, I agree, are also used in cattle feeding stuffs. We do not know what to sell them at. Is not that chaos? Would the right hon. Gentleman like any more examples? If necessary, I can produce them. Take dried fruit. We had a very reasonable negotiation with the Department on dried fruit, one of the best set of negotiations that we have had, but if falls down here. We were promised a release, ex-Government store, eight days ago. We are still waiting. There is a shortage everywhere of dried fruits in the shops. Does the right hon. Gentleman want any more? I never wanted to bring these matters up in public. I wanted to get thorn done privately. If you could get the trade channels working in this period, there was the best chance of getting a maintenance of the public morale. Instead of that you have this kind of chaos the whole time.
I hope the Minister will not think that because I am being comparatively short it is because I cannot produce, further arguments. I hope he will give us an assurance now that the first essential shall be done and that he will not tell the representatives of the people that for another four, five, six or seven weeks, till you have analysed the returns to be taken next Friday, we are to be left in this chaotic condition with regard to a number of food commodities in which we are short. We in trade circles consulting with the Department as far back as 5th January, 1938, approved the whole basis of the ration scheme. It is ready to be worked as soon as the Department is willing to work it.

6.37 p.m.

Sir George Schuster: I think the right hon. Gentleman has done a considerable service in raising this question and giving us a chance of debating a number of points which have come up incidentally at Question Time but which cannot be fully threshed out in answer to questions. I find myself, with some regret, but with no hesitation, completely in agreement with everything that he has said. It is the duty of some of us who are connected with particular lines of business to make use of our experience in bringing to the public attention matters of public importance which come before our notice in our business, but I recognise that all of us who are affected in a particular business are apt to see our own troubles magnified. I particularly want to avoid making the mistake of exaggerating the embarrassment which has been caused to us who are engaged in the food business, but I feel that the matter is of real public importance, for two reasons. The first is that examples of what really can only be described as great inefficiency in the carrying out of schemes, for which there has been ample time for preparation, tends to cause lack of public confidence in the Government and put a very heavy tax on the good will and morale of the people. The second reason that I put forward as justifying one in saying that this is a matter of importance is that I think we can find, in what appear to me to be mistakes that have been made as regards these food control schemes, lessons which are going to be extremely valuable in considering the relations of the Government to business and production and to the co-ordinated national effort of the country which this war demands. And what seems to me to be the chief lesson to be drawn from these experiences I would put in very simple language. Do not take over control until you are well prepared and well equipped to exercise it.
I believe we are in very great danger in this war, having recognised the fact that nothing short of a co-ordinated national effort will see us through, of the Government scrapping existing machinery and taking over control of everything before it is really prepared with plans or personnel to exercise that control. One can see examples of that in what has happened during these two weeks in regard to food. The right hon. Gentleman has given a number of examples. It is valu-

able to test these matters out by practical experience. I do not want to dwell in detail on the experience in regard to fish, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food has very generously and courageously faced the problem which arose there. We are all grateful to him for having faced it so frankly; still, it was an example of the Government machine taking control without being sure that the means were there for administering that control when it had been taken over.
Let me turn from fish to meat. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that something of the same kind has been happening in regard to meat. I hope my right hon. Friend is right when. he says that these problems ' are being got over, but if one is commenting on the efficiency with which these things are being done and have been prepared for, I would like to put it to my right hon. Friend that it is rather curious that, two days after the war began, his Department were urgently hunting round to get a new controller of meat. Surely that was an appointment which ought to have been suitably filled in the long time of preparation before the war. The right hon. Gentleman has given several other examples. Let me add one or two more. The right hon. Gentleman made no reference to tea, but it is a very good example of the sort of thing which I have in mind. In the first days of the war with the idea — quite a justifiable one — of getting stocks as quickly as possible out of London, which was supposed to be a vulnerable centre, the Government came along and removed tea from the public warehouses in London. They took our tea which was lying there, but they did not tell us what they were going to pay us for it. They just took it away. They did not tell us where it was going. I do not think that they themselves are quite aware where it has all gone. There was a plan in existence before the war that certain warehouses were to be left untouched so that that proportion of tea which was left in London would be tea of which the ownership was clear, and which was arranged and stacked in warehouses in such a way that deliveries could be made in an orderly way, quality by quality. At the last moment, I do not know on whose order or responsibility, the whole of that plan was scrapped and


tea was taken indiscriminately from every warehouse in London. That tea has been taken away. It has been mixed up, some of it in barges. Some of it is in laundries in towns in Scotland.
None of us can get out the kind of tea that we want. I heard of one case in which 20,000 chests of tea had been stacked 14 chests high in a laundry in Scotland, all mixed up. The right hon. Gentleman knows that any warehouseman with a wage of a few pounds a week who stacked tea in that sort of way would be dismissed at once. I do not know what official was responsible for that, but, anyhow, there is the position. The tea has all been mixed up. We have not yet got a Government scheme by which we can sell "National Mark Tea," for which we are-not responsible. We have to sell under our own labels and yet we do not know what qualities we are going to get. We have been unable to draw any fresh supplies of tea for about three weeks; nevertheless we have, as grateful citizens, to pay to the Government Id. per pound for the work they have done. A penny a pound on tea represents a margin of 8 per cent, or 9 per cent., and that is quite a substantial addition to the price at which we have to sell the tea.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned dried fruits. I believe that that again is an example of the same kind of thing. The Government have taken all the stocks of dried fruit, but they do not know now what they have got, and until they do know they cannot start making issues. Therefore, the trade have to go without fresh supplies of dried fruits for three or four more weeks.
The right hon. Gentleman dwelt at great length on the question of butter, and I do not want to traverse that ground in detail. I will only say that I wholeheartedly agree with him that in times like the present, where there is a maladjustment between what the public want of a certain commodity and what is available for supply, whether that maladjustment be caused by the fact that the public are, as in the case of sugar, trying to buy more than their normal quantity or whether it arises because supplies are interrupted and are less than normal, there is only one fair way of dealing with that state of affairs and that is by a Government rationing scheme. Anything else must be unfair to the trade and to the public. I suppose

that the right hon. Gentleman in his business of co-operative societies can tell pretty well who are his regular customers, because they are registered members, but those of us who are running businesses which cater for the masses, and deal with hundreds or even thousands of customers in small branches every week, find that it is impossible to tell who are our regular customers. It is impossible to prevent one family from sending five or six of its members each to take a small amount, and you cannot control distribution.
I am certain that in the next few weeks important commodities like butter will be most unfairly distributed. We were always told before the war that, as the result of the experience during the last war, when we developed a marvellously efficient system of food control — so efficiently, I understand, that it has been copied exactly by the German Government — we should be able to introduce rationing within three weeks. If that had been done none of these troubles would have arisen, but, for some reason or other which I confess I cannot understand, it has been decided that we must wait for the compilation of the National Register before ration cards can be issued. We had no national register in the last war and, so far as I know, there was a very successful system of rationing.
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of all these incidents, but they are taken by the public as signs — they cannot be otherwise taken — of inefficiency which will undermine public confidence in the Government. I want to ask my right hon. Friend to let us know that this question is being fairly faced: Who is responsible for all the things that have gone wrong? I am sure we all want to know who is responsible. None of us has vindictive ideas against any personality, but we are at war now, and we cannot win the war if inefficiency is allowed to continue among the people who are administering these matters. We want to know whether the Government are satisfied with the situation. If they are satisfied, then let me state the warning that increasing numbers of the population will become dissatisfied with the Government. If on the other hand the Government are not satisfied, we want to know what they are going to do about it. We shall want to know what has been done. We are all ready to make sacrifices in the public interest, and all who are


engaged in business are only too anxious to co-operate for the public purpose and help to produce the co-ordinated national effort which will lead us to success; but in the confusion created by the Ministry's plans it has been extremely difficult for any of us to know what is the right thing to do in the public interest.
I want to make one last point. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the effect of this policy on prices. The Government, as he told us, took over in the first week something like 9,000 tons of butter from traders. We have not yet been paid for that butter, but we believe we are going to be paid at the price then current, which on an average was, I believe, something below 118s. per cwt. That butter is now going to be sold back to us at 145s. per cwt. The Government are going to make a profit on that of something like £ 250,000. I do not object to them making a profit, but was it necessary to put prices up to the public so quickly and so steeply? I agree that we must not let Danish and Dutch butter, for instance, go to Germany, and it may be that in order to get that butter ourselves it has been necessary to push prices for such continental butter up to something like what corresponds to 145s. a cwt. I do not know. But that does not apply to New Zealand butter. I do not know who is going to get the profit on that, though I should not object to the New Zealand Government getting something out of it, to help them to prosecute the war. But even if a higher price has to be paid for new arrivals I should have thought it would have been easy to average out the price of issue by taking into account the low priced stocks taken over, and that such a steep rise in prices to the public would not have been necessary. I apologise for having raised these matters in such detail. I cite them as practical examples of what is going on, and I appeal to the Government to give us some indication that they are as dissatisfied about the things which have gone wrong as we are ourselves.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin: My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) deserves the thanks of the House for bringing this matter forward. There is chaos in the countryside, particularly in respect of meat. In some parts of the country public sales are still going on. In West Wales public sales have been

prohibited, and there is in force a system of rationing the beasts from the farmers to the butchers. The farmers do not object to control if they see that it is necessary, but they object to control for control's sake. It is abundantly clear that in this scheme of the allocation of beasts to marts the Ministry has introduced control for control's sake. Control as it is now applied does not mean that beasts are better marketed than before. I apprehend that there are two problems to which the Minister must face up. The first is the allocation of marts for the farmers, and the second is the position of slaughterhouses for butchers. The basis, anyhow in West Wales, for the allocation of beasts from farmers is the parish. All the beasts in a certain parish have been allocated to a certain mart. That scheme does not work. It is a complete failure. I respectfully suggest that the Minister should immediately look into this matter himself, and he will see that if it goes on, particularly as regards the meat trade, there will be complete chaos, and he will not get the meat that is so urgently required. I would ask the Minister to abandon this form of control altogether, and let the farmer send his beasts to the mart that he has used all his life. The Minister, fortunately, is a countryman himself. He knows that the marts have grown up as a result of long experience — as a result of that experience the farmer knows the mart which is most convenient for him and where he does other business.
In West Wales, and I daresay in North Wales, too, the shape of many parishes is such that, in the case of a long parish of as much as nine or ten miles in length, it is less expensive and more convenient for a farmer in the north of the parish to send his animals to one mart while a farmer in the southern part of the parish may find it better for him to send his animals to a different mart. Under this scheme all the farmers in that parish would have to send their beasts to the same mart. Here is an example. A very good fanner who produces the very best cattle lives three or four miles out of Llandilo. Now he takes his beasts into this market and if he should find he is short of petrol he could walk his beasts there. Under the new scheme that farmer has to take his beasts double the distance to the Carmarthen market. It is quite impossible for him to walk his beasts


all that distance, and he has to find transport. Where is he to find the transport for them, and where is he to get the petrol? I can give the Minister examples of four whole parishes — perhaps he will remember the names: Llanedy, Amman-ford, Llannon and Llangennech. The farmers from these four parishes have always sent their beasts into the market at Gowerton a few miles away. They have now been ordered to send their beasts to Kidwelly — more than twice the distance. The present scheme is expensive and unworkable. I ask the Minister to say at once that this paper scheme, conceived, I take it, at Cardiff by a man who does not know anything at all about West Wales, shall be scrapped.
There is another point with which I would ask the Minister to deal at once. That is the question of weighing sheep at these marts. The graders estimate the weight of sheep, which seems to be ridiculous when there is a weighbridge at hand, and there is plenty of time. I am told that, whereas the maximum prices on paper come to 11d. or II ½ d. per lb., farmers in some marts in West Wales have been receiving 7d. and 7 ½ d. That sort of thing is inexcusable, and if the Minister were to say that wherever possible sheep must be weighed, it would do away with a large number of complaints on the part of the farmers.
The gentleman who has been responsible for fixing the position of the slaughterhouses must have taken a map of South Wales and a pin. He then must have shut his eyes and just dropped the pin anywhere, and the point happened to drop in two places in Pembrokeshire and in three places in Carmarthenshire, where they are to use these slaughterhouses. The method is absurd. Butchers now have to come for some distances up to 20 or 25 miles in order to obtain their meat, and there is no excuse for making that sort of arrangement. There are proper slaughterhouses in those counties which can be utilised. Why only two slaughterhouses in the whole of the county of Pembroke, and only three in a county of the size of Carmarthen? What is "the reason for it? Farmers know perfectly well that, whereas in the last war there were too many slaughterhouses, there are now too few. If the Minister does not look into the matter, he will find, as

my right hon. Friend has so rightly said, that there will be chaos in the meat trade.
In view of the allocation of these marts there have been of necessity many men, and particularly auctioneers, who have been largely put out of business, and men have been put in their places who occupy two, three and four other jobs. I think that a word from the Minister would be sufficient to advise that, where a man has been put out of a job in this way and he is suitable for work at one of these marts, he should be given a preference before a job is given to another man who may already have two or three other jobs besides. These are problems straight from the countryside, and I hope that the Minister will, as regards the allocation of beasts and the position of slaughterhouses, give his immediate attention to these two problems.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I want to detain the House only for a few moments in order to confirm that what the hon. Member has just been saying as regards Carmarthen is equally true in the case of Scotland. Although the scheme there is slightly different, the problem is precisely the same. The chaos of the last week is similar and the complaints are of the same volume, intensity and nature. I ask my right hon. Friend, bearing in mind the history of the fish scheme, seriously and immediately to consider the complaints now prevalent in the meat trade, and see whether he cannot make another important and courageous decision and scrap the scheme and start again. I will not take time to explain the Scottish scheme but merely remind the Minister of some of its results. We have a grading scheme which has been introduced since the war. There is not a farmer in Scotland who produces fat cattle, and who was present at any market last week, who does not complain bitterly of the unfair and irregular system of grading, or who does not regard the basic price fixed as equally unjust.
So that I may not be said to be exaggerating, I will quote from the Secretary of the Scottish Farmers' Union, who writes to me to-day saying that
 during the last week there has been utter confusion in the livestock market throughout Scotland.


As a meeting of the Scottish Farmers' Union held last Friday in Glasgow the chairman spoke of "consternation and confusion." One delegate from Dumfries said that
 if the Union and the Chamber did not get this method of marketing changed, there would be revolution in Dumfries.
That may be somewhat of an exaggeration in that part of the country, but it indicates that there is something radically wrong with this particular scheme. The chairman, at that meeting on Friday, in a speech, which, I think, ought to be remembered in the country, made it abundantly plain that this time at any rate the Union is not going to stand for any profiteering on the part of the farmers. I welcome that assurance. I hope that that may be true. I am certain that the House and the country would resent bitterly any profieering in food supplies. At that meeting the Farmers' Union, with its representatives from every part of Scotland, passed a resolution unanimously, a copy of which was sent to my right hon. Friend and to other members of Government Departments. The resolution said:
 We consider the present arrangements impossible. The Council insists on the immediate re-organisation of the scheme and the adjustment of prices. It is imperative that Scottish producers should be consulted before decisions are taken.
It is an amazing thing that, in the case of this meat scheme, and, as I believe also, in the case of wool control in Scotland, the producers were not consulted. It is an intolerable and senseless situation, and surely it is not asking too much that the right hon. Gentleman should at least promise that producers in regard to all products shall be consulted by the Government before these new drastic schemes are introduced. The Farmers' Union made a definite suggestion. They said:
 In Scotland we consider a deadweight grading policy is necessary for all fat cattle and sheep and should be operated at the earliest possible moment.
For my part, I warmly approve of that proposal, and it is essential that the Minister should give some indication that a policy of that kind should quickly be put into operation.
I pass now to a second point. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) explained what had happened in West Wales as a result of the new

slaughterhouse policy. I will tell my right hon. Friend what has happened in Scotland and I will take as an example a small corner of Scotland which I happen to represent — the eastern corner of Fife. There we have half a dozen burghs with good workable slaughterhouses, and now comes the hand of bureaucracy to shut these slaughterhouses, and the whole of the meat for that part of the country has to be collected and slaughtered at St. Andrews. That means that St. Leven butchers and Coupar butchers must travel daily to St. Andrews. In the East of Fife alone I estimate that the butchers will have to travel 2,000 to 3,000 miles a week more than they are travelling now to collect their daily supplies. What that will mean in increased petrol consumption, cost of meat to the consumers and increased delay and waste of time, one can scarcely estimate. Having had experience of the fish scheme it is well that before this new scheme is introduced the Minister should pause in this reckless career of bureaucracy. I invite my right hon. Friend seriously to tell us that, although he may not be able to accept fully the criticisms or the suggestions that I have made, at least he will give us an assurance that he will halt for a while in the practical application of this scheme until such time as its needs have been proved and the plan itself has been confirmed by those who understand these matters. If he persists against the advice of those who know best, he will have to face another fish Waterloo. I hope that will not be necessary.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I should like to ask the Minister to take this opportunity of explaining to us where his duties begin and those of the Minister of Agriculture end. I do not know where the line of demarcation is, and I do not think that anybody has quite understood whether the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the arrangements which have been made for the sale of livestock, or whether that comes from the Food Defence authorities. One recognises that in the first week or two there was bound to be considerable confusion and difficulty. The farmers in my part of the Kingdom were not content with the details of the arrangement made in the North-West of England with regard to the auction marts for fat stock last week. I do not, however, want to dwell upon that point, particularly if


the Minister is able to tell us that the present arrangements are purely interim, while he is preparing his full scheme.
It has occurred to some of us whether at the present time it was necessary to fix wholesale prices, provided retail prices were fixed. The men who buy livestock are in the normal course of their business working on a fixed level of prices and are quite able to adjust the prices they give to the farmers knowing what price the retailer will obtain for his meat. Many of the difficulties which have arisen would not have arisen if the retail prices had been fixed, and the wholesale prices had been left to find their own level. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say that the present stabilisation is merely an interim arrangement before he takes over the whole of the livestock. That is where my point comes in as to where the demarcation lies between him and the Minister of Agriculture. Will he take over the finished product, the meat after it has reached the auction mart or the slaughterhouse, or the butter after it has been made in the local butter factory? If so, some of the minor points which I would like to raise will be dealt with, and farmers will no doubt be ready to put up with them for a week or two.
The grading which has not been satisfactory to us any more than it has been satisfactory in Scotland, is being done entirely by butchers and dealers. Surely, it is only right that the farmers' representative should have some say in the estimate of what the weight of the animal is and the decision as the grade into which that animal should go. The point about fixing wholesale prices is more particularly illustrated by the fixing of grades of fat cattle. There are no grades in the retail price that has been fixed, and why should the farmer be prevented from getting more than 44s. if the dealers and butchers think the beast is worth more than that? Fix the top price if you like, but a graded price for wholesale meat and not a retail price for graded meat is notfair to the farmer who happens to have meat which the local butcher and dealer think is second grade meat. These things might be tolerated for a week or two until the scheme gets into operation, but they certainly ought to be satisfactorily dealt with.
The whole task of the Minister will be simplified when rationing is introduced.

Can the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of letting us know what are his plans for the distribution of home-produced food and imported food? We take note of the fact that he is buying large stocks of imported food, and we hear many rumours that he is going to buy at some stage in its production the produce of British farms. If that is so, we should like to know what method of distribution he is going to employ. We know that local committees are being set up, and we should like to know what the powers of those committees are to be. Are they to be purely advisory, and will the real decision be taken by the local meat controller, or will the local committee have any really effective voice? This illustrates one of the great difficulties with which the House is faced after having handed over such complete powers to the Minister. We know very little what his intentions are, and often we merely learn from the Press or from some regulation which is issued only to those it affects that, say, the whole of butter or meat supplies have been taken over and that auction marts have been closed down.
I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of explaining to us in broad outline what his intentions are in regard to food distribution. I am sure that other hon. Members will have had the same experience that I have had in my constituency. I have been beseiged with people asking me what is to happen with regard to their particular businesses. For instance, I have been asked: "Is butter production likely to go on; am I likely to go on in this business?" I give that as an example. If the Minister would give us a little more information I should be very grateful. We have not yet had a general statement from the Minister of Agriculture. If food rationing is introduced or if the Minister has a knowledge what the rations are going to be from that point of view the whole question of food production in this country and the imports of food could be worked.
I am sure that farmers are anxious to produce as much food as possible, and even if imports are not seriously menaced by submarine warfare, surely, from the point of view of saving foreign exchange and using ships for commodities which cannot be produced here, the policy of producing all we can is right. But it must depend on what the rationing is


to be. If the ration for eggs is going to be a large one, it may be necessary for poultry farmers to produce more eggs. We must look at the programme as one of how to provide the food which is necessary for this country at the present time. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to explain how the production of home produced food is to be made? I am sure that many people would be grateful for more information.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: I want to pay a testimony to the Minister's Department for a certain amount of resilience on the question of slaughter-houses and abattoirs. In one case I was able by direct representation to secure an adjustment from a very faulty decision. The machinery is there without actually pummeling the Minister. Again this afternoon we had a testimony of the effectiveness with which the milk supply has been handled, and I dared to suggest that the answer was a pointer to leaving things as they are in certain well developed industries, and feeling our way by degrees. At the Same time I am a little worried about the future of the milk supply. August was a record production month, but now farmers and producers generally are uncertain as to how to buy their feeding stuffs. Those with good credit are able to get supplies on an open price, and if they accept delivery they may find at the end of the month an invoice putting the price at a certain figure. The producer is hesitating to place his order. He does not want to pay on an open price but at the price which the Minister says he is going to lay down.
We are suffering from a lack of decision. The principle has been settled. Farmers are alive to the fact that wheat is not going to be a free market; there is. to be a fixed price. They believe that wheat will be taken for certain uses and will not be allowed to be used for other purposes, such as poultry feeding. That if. the idea that is abroad, and it is tying up the poultry industry. If a clear statement was made that at a given time wheat would be prohibited for the use of poultry feeding it might allow men to get out their mature birds in an orderly way, the millers and merchants would be able to exercise that kind of restraint which comes from limited supplies, and the farmer would gradually reduce his

stock, if he wanted to, or find his way to some alternative feeding stuffs. But while farmers know all about wheat they are tied up on barley. The word has gone round that they are to have a free market for barley. It may be that the Minister of Food has decided to commandeer all imported barley and that such users as brewers are not going to get it. Therefore the brewers will come to the home market and the farmer will be free to sell in a free market. That principle may have been settled. If so, why not say so at once? Farmers will not mind making up their farming revenue out of their barley. That sort of decision should be announced before the end of this month, certainly before the first week in October, or some mistakes may be made in farming policy.
In the matter of milk production farmers are suffering because of the uncertainty over their feeding stuffs. A man of bad credit may not be able to get supplies at all. That may be the job of the Minister of Agriculture, but it looks to me to be the job of the Minister of Food, and, if so, it is time that a clear statement was made with regard to feeding stuffs affecting milk supplies. I support the suggestion that we should have evidence of very close relationship between the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture, so close that the Minister of Agriculture already knows his allocations — what he is to produce in the way of potatoes and other things, and so that the farmer is told what he must produce irrespective of what the convoys are able to bring to this country. If that was done I think the Government would have to exercise far less administrative pressure on the industry than they are exercising at the moment. Not only would it save exchange and shipping space, but it would also relieve naval vessels from convoy duties.
There is every argument for going ahead quite firmly with imported food supplies and a very definite agricultural policy at home. Some confusion has arisen over the fixing of prices for pork and bacon. Most farmers understand that we want to get the bigger cut and you have fixed the price at a point which encourages the bigger cut, but uncertainty as to food stuffs is such that in certain counties an excess of immature pigs is being sent to market at the


moment, because the farmer is uncertain as to his feeding stuff prices, and rather than run the risk he is putting his pigs in when they should not be put in. Wherever pigs are at the moment they should be grown to their full weight; we should make sure that the man who has got them, carries them to a marketable stage.
I see that the two Ministers are sitting together. One Minister is in a quagmire of administrative difficulties. I think there is a certain amount of sympathy in the House for his position, and I entertain a little. With regard to the other Minister, up to now the complaints I have about him — and again, I am trying to be as kind as possible — are that nothing is precise, not even to his agricultural war committees. There are generalities and appeals, but no precision and definiteness. The principle has been decided upon, a decision has been taken as to the approach, but the Department cannot make up their mind within a shilling or two as to the price or the fixing of the amounts. Why is not a decision of that kind announced? If it were announced, it would give immense confidence to the industry, which is in a good frame of mind. The industry is not standing out for a price, but it wants to know exactly what it is to do.
For instance, farmers are being asked to plough up acres. The farmer knows that it costs £ 10 an acre before he can move to put seed potatoes in. He is hesitating about potatoes. In ordinary times, that is all right, but in war time you can make alcohol and starch out of potatoes, they can be used for feeding animals and human beings, they are a food with an industrial use. Would it not be possible to announce that potatoes will not be less in price next year, whatever may be the outcome of the war, than they are at this time? That would be enough. But let there be something definite, let the farmer know that if the war stops in March of next year, the potato output has been taken as an insurance by the country. If that were done, we should not have to go round the country arguing with the farmers, as we have to do in every parish, and as I am doing, being in charge of 33 parishes in this matter. We have to argue with every farmer the pros and cons of putting

in potatoes. He knows that he is going to get 45s. for wheat; he would like it to be 50s.; one is not sympathetic to that; but one is sympathetic when one knows that a man is hesitating in making up his mind to plough up usually small acreages for such a crop as potatoes. A decision in this matter could be taken out of hand without seriously impairing the machine which both Ministers have in mind. In making my appeal, I do not wish to point to mistakes; I am making an appeal for precision and definiteness of the kind I have indicated.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Price: I hope that one of the two Ministers now sitting on the Front Bench will be able to indicate to us, when replying, that something will be done to clear up the undoubted muddle which there is at the present time in the agricultural and food position in this country. Those hon. Members who, like myself, have farmers in their constituencies are naturally very much disturbed by the present situation. Only yesterday I was in the market town of Gloucester, where many of my constituents sell their produce, and I found the utmost confusion and alarm about the situation, more particularly with regard to feeding stuffs. There is now no barley, and very little maize, coming on to the market in any of the Bristol Channel ports, as I was credibly informed by the agents of the wholesalers and millers in that market yesterday. I was told that they are unable to make up balanced rations for pigs and poultry. They begged that this matter should be made known, and they also asked whether something could not be done to enable them to use at least a higher percentage of wheat. We are given to understand there are large stocks of wheat, and it is possible to feed up to a certain percentage of wheat in many of the balanced rations, if it is second quality wheat which is not used for milling for human consumption; but under the Wheat Act, it is not possible for more than 50 per cent, to be used in these rations.
Something must be done; if the farmers cannot get one, they must be able to get the other. If the stocks are not there, let them know about it. The farmers must know whether they should take steps to cut down their flocks of poultry and herds of pigs. However, I believe the stocks are there, at any rate in the case


of wheat; and if they are not, at least the farmers have a right to know, so that they can take steps to go in for a type of animal which consumes less imported foods. This, of course, is the main difficulty with the pig and poultry industries, which are more in the nature of processing industries than are the cattle and sheep industries. A far higher percentage of imported feeding stuffs is given to pigs and poultry than to cattle and sheep. Consequently, if it is difficult in the present situation to consume so much imported feeding stuffs, an indication ought to be given to the farmers. A farmer cannot suddenly cut down on a farm where there is a large number of a certain class of stock, and throw a mass of stuff on to the market. I ask that the farmers should be given an indication whether they are going to get these balanced rations with which pigs and poultry are so largely maintained, and if there is to be a smaller proportion, what is to be that proportion, so that they may know whether they should cut down or go out of business altogether?
There is another matter I want to raise. Many of the farmers in my district are very much concerned with regard to the supplies of petrol. Many of them are in the habit of taking part of their livestock — and in fruit districts, their fruit — to market on trailers. They are not to get more petrol than is allowed for ordinary private cars, because their vehicles are not commercial vehicles. One can understand that, however much one may regret it, but the serious point is whether commercial hauliers are to get petrol rations which will enable them to convey the produce which they now take to market and also the produce of those who have up to now conveyed their produce to market on trailers. From what is generally understood in my locality, that is not so; probably, they are to be cut down still more. Consequently, there will be a position in which large amounts of fruit, of which there is a very large crop in the Western counties, will rot in the orchards unless something is done about it. There is a great deal of other produce which goes to market in the way I have indicated. Although this matter may not be directly the concern of the Departments of the two Ministers now present, at least it is indirectly of concern to them, and I hope that something will be done about

it. I know that a job of this kind is not easy to arrange in a few weeks, and I make all allowance for the two Ministers in this matter. Their Departments are bound to have their teething troubles, but many of us feel that the troubles are going on rather too long.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This has been a valuable Debate, and if I cannot cover all the points that have been raised in the course of a very wide discussion, I shall at least endeavour to give a reply on the main issues. The Debate has arisen out of an answer which I gave to-day to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). The primary object, I think, in his mind was to secure that the importance of the introduction of rationing as early as possible should be kept well before the Government and the House. With that desire I have every sympathy. It is, I think, clear that no system of food control can be complete until rationing is established. Rationing is control of the consumer, and when one is erecting machinery for the complete control of all articles from producer to consumer it is evident that until the final stage of rationing has been reached that machinery will not work in a satisfactory manner.
As I say, rationing is control of the consumer, and one of the troubles of a food controller, as shown in the last war, is that while you can always get support from one section of the public for the control of some other section of the public, we do not find the same readiness on the part of those sections themselves to be controlled without a little grumbling about it. For my part I should like to say before I deal with some of the criticisms which have been mentioned that we are grateful to the great trade organisations, whether co-operative or private enterprise, for the assistance which they have given in this difficult time, and I feel certain, although they may have their grievances now, that they will continue in the public interest to assist to the best of their ability in this solution of the problems presented by this awkward and difficult period of transition.
The question of butter has been raised. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman feels that there are difficulties in that connection which require to be sorted out. We shall do our best in that


matter, but let me put frankly before the House the root difficulty of the situation. It is that there has been for these few weeks a shortage in supply. There is no reason why it should be concealed. It is due to causes with which the House is familiar and can readily imagine. The impact of war upon the normal economy creates profound diversions and dislocations. When one considers that the great source of our butter supply has been the Baltic countries, when one realises that we are in the very early days of the war, we must also realise, in spite of the very stirring message which we had to-day from the First Lord of the Admiralty, that there is bound to be a certain disturbance of supplies. One can see that, in those circumstances, it would be idle to cherish the hope that supplies from those sources would not be interrupted. That that interruption may prove to be of a temporary character, is our desire. When the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) spoke about certain difficulties with regard to foodstuffs he seemed to think it a monstrous thing that arrivals of our commercial shipping were not taking place with the same regularity as in the piping times of peace. He must know that the gathering together of vessels for safe convoy and other circumstances which I need not enumerate, arising directly out of the war are bound to interrupt and disorganise supplies.

Mr. J. Morgan: Has the Minister not stated the case for the rationing of butter?

Mr. Morrison: I am coming to that. Those are circumstances to which, I sometimes think, some hon. Members and some critics do not pay any attention at all. I do not make any accusation against any hon. Member who has spoken here, but I have heard complaints of that kind. When we consider these facts then, I agree, that the earliest possible institution of rationing is desirable. What are the' factors which enter into that particular matter? I received very wise advice along with a great amount of not so wise denunciation from the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster). His wise advice was not to proceed with a scheme until you were ready. That is perfectly true in these circumstances and in this case of rationing. When the scheme was originally devised, the register

for rationing purposes was to be created by means of a circular sent out by the Food Department to each householder to be filled up by the householder. At that time there was no question of national registration. Then along came this national registration project with its obvious advantages. It is clear that you can get a far better register if you can afford to wait.
There is another consideration, with which I shall deal in a moment, but you get a far better and much more honest and fair register when the work is done by skilled enumerators, than when it is left entirely to the ordinary householder who has difficulty in filling up forms. Also, if it can be done without damage to the public interest, it is surely better in a time like the present, to try to get this job done with one form and one effort and one set of questions and answers instead of having two efforts, one immediately following the other, for a purpose which can be achieved by one. Those are considerations which make it desirable, if possible, to found your rationing system upon your national registration and on the broad view of supplies to this country, it can be done. It means trouble for distributors of some commodities because it puts a sort of strain upon them. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to that. But I think, on the whole, taking the public advantage in its widest scope into account, it is the right course. It is not as though this were a question of choosing between one course which is absolutely right and another which is absolutely wrong. Here you have to choose between two courses, both with difficulties and both with features which can be criticised, and you have to make up your mind where the balance of advantage lies.

Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) and he really referred to what I said as well. The advice to which he refers may be unwise advice, but if the position is as the Minister has stated it, then why on earth did he take 9,000 tons of butter from us in the early days of September and control that, while he did not control the public? He took the butter from us and left the consumer completely unrationed and put us "in the cart." Let us have one thing or the other.

Mr. Morrison: Short of a complete system of control, there are measures of control which you can take and which you ought to take, to prevent a situation getting out of hand and, in the meantime, the rationing of a supply of butter which was below the normal consumption, was, I think, a wise thing to do.
May I say just a word or two on the question of meat? I am aware that many criticisms have been levelled against the meat scheme — some of them not as good as others, if I may put it in that way. May I again remind the House of the purpose of control? Why do we control at all? Why not leave everything to take its own course? Why interfere with anything? Because we are at war. Because it was found in the last war and proved conclusively and beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you cannot allow food to be uncontrolled during a modern war.
It was also proved, as those who have studied the history of food control in the last war will observe, that a price-fixing system, founded solely on the issue of maximum price orders, proved in the long run illusory because there are forces at work which tend to get round the orders and make the prices not fixed. The system of control which was finally evolved during the war, proceeded on the basis that to control the prices of the food of the public, you must control not only the price by means of maximum orders, but the very commodity itself. That being the principle upon which we are working and must work, a principle proved by hard experience in the last war, let us not shirk the difficulties which its application presents to us. You cannot have the Ministry of Food buying all the produce that comes into this country from abroad and that comes off our farms and distributing it under a system of fixed prices, and have at the same time what are called all the luxuries of ordinary times. That is the policy. You are bound to interfere, however much one regrets that there should be interference, but if any hon. Member has a criticism against the operation of the scheme, let him honestly pose to himself this question first: Would I, in order to ease up this particular difficulty, abandon control of the commodity? [Interruption.] Fish is a different matter. It is not a rationed commodity at all, and it is not an essential commodity in the

sense that people cannot do without it. Lots of people do do without it, but the great staple commodities have to be controlled and rationed. These things you have to have control of, possession of, and not merely an umbrella of price-fixing orders.

Mr. Alexander: If that is the extent of the right hon. Gentleman's answer upon the question of meat, then let me say that he is, so far as this side is concerned, knocking at an open door when he talks about taking control; but, after all, if we on this side took control, we should want to do it on the most economical basis.

Mr. Morrison: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to develop that side of the question, he must bear in mind his own adjuration that he and his friends would do it in the most economical manner. I am sure that that would be their duty. If the interests of economy are served by having fewer and better centres and slaughter houses, surely the consequence is clear that we should not shirk from using those slaughter houses best adapted to the public from the point of view of economy. Remember also that the market will become the collecting centre, and, therefore, although I am entirely disposed to consider individual cases where mistakes may have been made insiting a market, that is a very different thing from saying that all the market system, all the slaughter house system, of the country can be, with economy and public advantage, preserved under a system of control. These are two different points. I would like to say, with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin), who gave us a description of conditions in the country with whose geography and orthography he is more familiar than I am, that I will certainly look into those cases and into any similar cases, and, as the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) said, if there is a representation that the wrong place has been taken and that another place would suit better, all these things are capable of revision and review.

Mr. Hopkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared at this stage to say that the parish should not be of necessity the basis for the market?

Mr. Morrison: I do not see why in every case the parish ought to be the unit


Surely the consideration that ought to govern the siting of these markets and slaughter houses is the convenience of the people in the district. But not that alone. No doubt mistakes have been made here and there, and if they are brought before us, we shall gladly examine them, and try to make these things as little irksome and inconvenient as possible to the public. On the other hand, I would ask my hon. Friends to support me in this, and to say that a measure of control of this sort is necessary and that we ought, without too much grumbling, to put up with the inconveniences which, may follow.
I hope that now I may say a word about tea, because the hon. Member for Walsall did refer to it. He gave us an amusing picture of some tea which was snatched out of the docks of London and sent to various unknown destinations somewhere in England. That may appear a very ludicrous thing to have done, but it was not so ludicrous. It was the fact that at that time, before the war, there was an immense concentration of the tea supply of the whole Kingdom in London, and no one looking ahead could shut his eyes to the danger that if the war had gone differently from the way in which it has gone, that tea might have been destroyed very quickly.

Sir G. Schuster: I want to make it clear that I have never criticised the idea of tea control nor the evacuation of stocks from London. My point was that the Food Ministry had been in existence for three years and might have had proper plans ready.

Mr. Morrison: That is a reasonable and just observation, at which I do not wish to cavil. It appears from my hon. Friend's statement that some tea was put in a certain place and that the brands got mixed up somehow. I am very sorry for that. It shows what dreadful things can happen in times of war. Other matters that were raised I think I can pass over shortly. Other points were raised by the hon. Member for Doncaster, to whose speech I listened with great interest. He will find, I think, that the decisions on some of the points that he mentioned will be with him in a very short time. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself both realise that the earliest possible guidance

should be in the hands of the public on these matters, so that they can take full advantage of the time yet remaining to increase production through that ally of the home food supply, agriculture.
I am sure the House will realise that this task which we have had to take over is a very big one and that, however perfect the plans may have appeared on paper, the application of the plans to the facts of the situation must require some adjustment and review. But I would ask the House, when they come across the thorns which surround this rose, to comfort themselves with the thought of the object which we all seek to secure, namely, an equal and fair provision of food to the public at prices which they can afford.

Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to answer the grave difficulty of the trade in stating prices to the public, when he takes over butter from us at an average price of 118s. and sends it back to us at 145s., which means inevitably an average rise of 1 ½d. or 2d. a lb. to the consumer. Why does he not explain that?

Mr. Morrison: If that is the particular matter which the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to explain, I would say this about price movements in food. Of course, the full impact of the dislocation of war occurs in the first few weeks. You may expect to get the greatest amount of dislocation and a possible temporary shortage and consequent rise in prices in the first few weeks, and surely the House will agree that it would be a better policy to make such price-fixing orders as we do make, not in little bits showing an imperceptible but steady mounting upwards, but, if necessary, to jump a bit, looking forward to the future, and then to hold the price steady, despite a rise at the sources of primary supply, so as to ensure to the public stable and steady prices. When the matter is put in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman puts it, it almost looks as if the Department has made a profit out of butter. Let him realise that all the profit that is made by this Department is the public's profit. The profit made in one direction may be used to advantage by reducing price in another direction. Consequently I do not think the public need have any fears about that.
I hope that the House will assist me in bringing to my notice any definite cases of breakdown in the machinery. When I say "definite cases," I mean it, because nothing but good is done by bringing to the notice of the Minister some particular name and address with chapter and verse which he can investigate. Nothing but harm is done to the public interest by wild general charges of inefficiency or muddle unsupported by any evidence. I do not think I am making any accusation against any hon. Member who has spoken to-day, but I suggest that that is not an unreasonable request to make to the House so that these matters can be looked into.

Mr. W. Roberts: Are the arrangements in the livestock auction mart's which exist at present likely to continue, or are they purely temporary?

Mr. Morrison: They are by no means permanent. They are not the laws of the Modes and Persians, and if there are any regulations which are working to the public disadvantage they will be put right.

8. 2 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I think it is right to express to the Minister the dissatisfaction which I feel at the reply he has made. Every hon. Member will agree with the platitudinous part of his speech and the generalities, but interruption after interruption from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) and the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) showed that he was not tackling the very points they were raising. I repeat that there is no complaint about control of prices and distribution. What we are complaining about is, first of all, that there should not be control and maldistribution before there is a system that will work. The organisation in this country for the distribution of foodstuffs by trial and error over a period of years is marvellous, so that you can get in every village shop the requirements that are usually wanted. To go and upset that suddenly and substitute something else which will not work is disastrous. Our second complaint is that the Department have had time for three years to devise, if there was to be any control, a system that would work. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman driving away by saying that we have only been a short while at war and that these things are bound to arise.
The complaint of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) is one that I can repeat in my division. Why go and upset things which are working perfectly well and which are for the benefit of the people? Why ask the farmer to take his stock to a market 14 or 15 miles away, which he has never visited before, where he never does his shopping, and where he is unknown to the tradesmen, when he has a market town within three miles of him? What is the value of that? Who devised such a scheme? Where a farmer can walk his animals on the hoof he is now to spend money on petrol which is badly needed. You are also going to keep the men away from their farms and production. Where is the sense of putting into vogue a scheme of that kind? Our complaint against the Ministry is that these things are being done without sufficient thought, although, as the right hon. Gentleman kept on reminding us, we have the experience of the last war. The marvel is that we did as well then as we did without any previous experience. With that experience everyone is against a rise in prices.
The National Farmers' Union are adamant that there shall not be the rise that there was in the last war. We have all said that there ought not to be a rise in prices. The whole of Central Europe, from the eastern boundary of Poland to the eastern boundary of France, with the exception of a few neutrals, is out of the world market. They have been big consumers and buyers, but now they are out of our market, and we ourselves are the only possible buyers. There is, therefore, no reason for prices of things bought from the outside to go up. At the same time, farmers are prepared to fall under a reasonable control and help as much as they can, and it will not do for the Minister to come here with platitudes and then appeal to us to bring instances with which he can deal. We cannot get a worse instance than the one with regard to fish. Representations were made to the Minister before they were made on the Floor of the House. They were made for days before, and even on the day when they were raised in the House.

Mr. W. S. Morrisons: I think my hon. Friend is missing the point. I said that I had no complaints to make of criticisms of this sort. I received a lot of representations about fish, but I got them in a


contrary sense by means of telegrams. There were two sides to that question,. and I do not think the House would grudge me the opportunity to hear the two sides before taking the action I did.

Mr. Davies: I will repeat the answer which the right hon. Member for Hills-borough gave to the right hon. Gentleman when he retorted, "You cannot ride off with that," namely, that the right hon. Gentleman had only been in office only a few days and that the Ministry had been in a position to deal with this matter only a few days. They had been in possession of all the facts for two years. Representations were made to the Minister — it may be that they contradicted one another — and then representations were made on the Floor of the House, when the Minister said, "I am sticking to my

form of control, but I will reconsider it." Having reconsidered it and heard complaints from every part of the House, he withdrew the control and put the business back into the hands of those who have been running it for years and have made their livelihood out of it. We are now telling the Minister that if he is going to put on a control, let him see that it is an effective and economical one which will work. Otherwise, let the business be carried on by those who are accustomed to carrying it on. The people will then be supplied, prices will be proper ones, and there will not be a shortage in any house in the land.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eight o'Clock.